Dale A. Rinehart and Jeana L. Yeager, f.k.a. Jeana L. Rinehart, et al. - Page 8




                                        - 8 -                                         
          Commissioner, 338 F.2d 602, 605 (9th Cir. 1964), affg. 41 T.C.              
          593 (1964).  We found petitioners’ testimony on this issue to be            
          general, vague, conclusory, and/or questionable in certain                  
          material respects.  Under the circumstances presented here, we              
          are not required to, and do not, rely on petitioners’ testimony             
          to establish whether Ms. Yeager was insolvent.  Lerch v.                    
          Commissioner, 877 F.2d 624, 631-632 (7th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C.             
          Memo. 1987-295; Geiger v. Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688, 689-690               
          (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159; Tokarski             
          v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).  Accordingly, we conclude           
          that at the time of the discharge of indebtedness Ms. Yeager was            
          not entitled to the benefits provided by section 108(a)(1)(B).              
               E. Mr. Rinehart’s Liability Regarding the Canceled Debt                
               In the notice of deficiency issued to Mr. Rinehart for 1995,           
          respondent determined “in accordance with community property                
          laws” that Mr. Rinehart was liable for $10,987 of COD income.               
          Petitioners claim that pursuant to Texas law Ms. Yeager’s COD               
          income was not income to Mr. Rinehart as the cancellation of                
          indebtedness related to Ms. Yeager’s separate property and did              
          not give rise to community income.  Again, we need not decide               
          petitioners’ marital status for 1995 for Federal income tax                 
          purposes because, although respondent made an adjustment in Mr.             
          Rinehart’s separate notice of deficiency for 1995 regarding Ms.             
          Yeager’s COD income, in his briefs respondent did not address the           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011