John M. Mekulsia - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
               On Form 4605-A, the examiner made examination changes to               
          SGE’s 1985 partnership tax return as follows:  (1) An adjustment            
          reducing the partnership’s ordinary loss of $952,586 to zero; and           
          (2) an adjustment reducing the cost or other basis of qualified             
          investment property from $6,246,500 to zero.                                
               On May 2, 1989, the same examiner signed Form 4665 and Form            
          4605-A for SGE’s 1986 tax year.  The Report Transmittal for the             
          1986 tax year was essentially identical in all material respects            
          to the report completed for the previous year.                              
               On Form 4605-A, the examiner made examination changes to               
          SGE’s 1986 partnership tax return as follows:  (1) An adjustment            
          reducing the partnership’s ordinary loss of $1,856,560 to zero;             
          and (2) an adjustment reducing payments to individual retirement            
          accounts (IRA) and Keogh accounts totaling $60,000 to zero.                 
               On June 13, 1989, respondent issued an FPAA to petitioner              
          and Jay Hoyt, as TMP of SGE, relating to the partnership return             
          filed for the 1985 tax year.  In the Explanation of Adjustments             
          included with the FPAA, respondent adjusted the 1985 claimed                
          partnership expenses totaling $962,586 to zero and adjusted the             
          value of the qualified investment property claimed from                     
          $6,246,500 to zero.  The explanation listed 12 reasons why SGE              
          was “entitled to no items of ordinary loss, deduction, credit, or           
          other items of tax benefit.”  Further, the explanation stated               
          that the partners of SGE were not entitled to their distributive            






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