John G. Goettee, Jr. and Marian Goettee - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
          a combination of withheld taxes ($1,868), estimated tax payments            
          ($17,000), and other refundable credits ($500).  On June 13,                
          1983, respondent refunded to petitioners $14,851.79, consisting             
          of $14,549 plus interest thereon (for the period Apr. 15 through            
          June 1, 1983) in the amount of $302.79 for 1982.                            
          A.  The Transaction                                                         
               On the recommendation of John’s father, an accountant and              
          tax attorney, John3 acquired a limited partnership interest in              
          The Thompson Equipment Associates partnership (hereinafter                  
          sometimes referred to as TEA) during September 1981.  John                  
          acquired the interest in TEA in exchange for a $12,500 check and            
          a $12,500 promissory note which matured on February 15, 1982.               
          Marian issued a check on February 10, 1982, that paid the                   
          promissory note in full.                                                    
               Petitioners claimed flowthrough losses from TEA on their tax           
          returns for 1981, 1982, and 1983.  Petitioners carried back                 
          “credits/losses” from 1981 to 1978 and 1979.  As a result of the            
          “credits/losses” carried back from 1981 to 1979, on June 28,                
          1982, respondent refunded to petitioners $10,375.38, consisting             
          of $9,568 plus interest thereon (for the period Jan. 1 through              


               3  The parties have stipulated that (1) John acquired the              
          partnership interest, and (2) both petitioners were limited                 
          partners.  The parties have not reconciled the two stipulations.            
          It does not appear to matter to the instant case whether Marian             
          also was a limited partner in Thompson Equipment Associates.  For           
          convenience, we refer to John as the limited partner.                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011