- 40 -
1991 with respect to the loan, seeking $3,750, which further
confirms that significant repayment had been made.7 Respondent
makes no effort on brief to explain how petitioner lacked intent
to repay this loan when she in fact repaid approximately 25
percent. His determination is not sustained.
Respondent determined that petitioner had unreported
embezzlement income of $5,000 in 1989 from an individual named
Jane M. Although the evidence establishes that Jane M. was an
associate of petitioner’s, petitioner has denied receiving this
amount from Jane M. Respondent has not introduced evidence to
rebut this assertion, nor has he contested petitioner’s denial on
brief. We conclude that respondent has abandoned this issue, see
Julicher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-55; Zidar v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-200 (citing Bradley v.
Commissioner, 100 T.C. 367, 370 (1993)), and the determination is
accordingly not sustained.
Respondent determined that petitioner had unreported
embezzlement income of $13,250 from an individual named John K.
Respondent clarified in his answer that the determination was
7 Mr. S. subsequently made at least two statements to the
IRS in connection with these proceedings that were inconsistent
with these findings (and with each other), to the general effect
that none of the $5,000 had been repaid. We are convinced,
however, that Mr. S. would not have sued in 1991 for less than he
thought he was owed. Further, when confronted at trial with the
invoice documenting partial repayment, Mr. S. acknowledged his
initials on the document.
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011