- 4 -
reporting losses from partnerships other than PRA. Ms. Skoller
signed the return but did not examine or question it.
Petitioners appeared at trial pro se with respect to the
business bad debt deduction and accuracy-related penalty issues.
However, Ms. Skoller retained counsel with respect to the section
6015 relief from joint and several liability issue. After trial,
notwithstanding the small tax case status, the Court directed the
parties to file briefs. See Rule 177(c). Respondent filed a
brief that addressed all of the issues. Ms. Skoller filed a
brief addressing only the section 6015 relief from joint and
several liability. Mr. Skoller did not file a brief.
Discussion
The failure to discuss in brief an issue that was previously
raised results in the abandonment of that issue. See Calcutt v.
Commissioner, 84 T.C. 716, 721 (1985). Mr. Skoller is an
attorney and surely understood the importance of complying with
directives from the Court. Thus, we deem that petitioners have
abandoned the business bad debt deduction and section 6662(a)
accuracy-related penalty issues.3 Additionally, we deem that Mr.
3 We note, however, that it is clear that, to the extent
Mr. Skoller advanced funds to PRA (an issue that we need not
decide), the advance was a contribution to capital and not a bona
fide debt. “A * * * contribution to capital shall not be
considered a debt for purposes of section 166.” Sec. 1.166-1(c),
Income Tax Regs. Mr. Skoller testified that “the money was given
to Princeton Residential Associates. It was part of my capital
contribution at that time.” Furthermore, it appears that PRA may
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011