- 51 -
APPENDIX B
All the following issues were either conceded on brief or
deemed conceded.
Respondent concedes that Eureka Field Nursery’s $54,229.76
payment to Mark E. Tietig was a return of capital to Mark Tietig
and therefore should be excluded from the computation of
petitioner’s gain from Eureka Field Nursery. Respondent also
concedes that the $54,229.76 did not actually belong to Eureka
Field Nursery but instead to the joint venture entered into by
Eureka Field Nursery and Mark Tietig. Respondent concedes that
the $54,229.76 was not income to Eureka Field Nursery.
Respondent concedes that the subsequent transfer of this amount
to Mark Tietig was not really a payment to Mark Tietig by Eureka
Field Nursery of money it had earned but a distribution from the
joint venture to Mark Tietig. Respondent concedes that the
$54,229.76 payment should not be included in the calculation of
petitioner’s distributive share from Eureka Field Nursery in
1991.
Respondent determined that petitioner’s distributive share
of income from Farm & Grove should be increased by $1,755 in 1990
because of realized gains on foreclosed properties. Petitioner
did not specifically allege an error by respondent regarding this
issue in his petition. Thus, we consider the issue conceded.
See Rule 34(b)(4).
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011