Terry O'Neal Styron - Page 3




                                        - 2 -                                         

               Respondent determined a deficiency of $10,226 in                       
          petitioner's 1994 Federal income tax.                                       
               The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner, under               
          section 170(a), is entitled to an itemized deduction of $55,000             
          for a charitable contribution resulting from the bargain sale of            
          a boat to a qualified tax-exempt organization in lieu of $22,960            
          allowed by respondent in the notice of deficiency.                          
               Some of the facts were stipulated.  Those facts and the                
          accompanying exhibits are so found and are incorporated herein by           
          reference.  Petitioner's legal residence at the time the petition           
          was filed was Wetumpka, Alabama.                                            
               Petitioner is a franchised automobile dealer engaged in the            
          sale of new and used motor vehicles.  At the time of trial,                 
          petitioner had been engaged in this business 30 years.                      
          Petitioner held a Chevrolet and Oldsmobile franchise and another            
          franchise for Chrysler, Plymouth, Jeep, and Dodge vehicles.  This           
          latter franchise was located at Troy, Alabama.                              
               On March 1, 1991, petitioner purchased at public auction a             
          pleasure boat for $53,500.2  The boat was a 1989 model Sea Ray              


               2    There is a conflict in the evidence as to the date                
          petitioner purchased the boat.  The written stipulation and                 
          petitioner's tax return for 1994 state the date of purchase was             
          March 1, 1991; however, at trial, petitioner testified he                   
          purchased the boat in December 1991.  The difference in dates is            
          not material to deciding the issue.  In addition, there is a                
          conflict in the evidence as to the amount petitioner paid for the           
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011