Mary Catherine Pierce - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
          Corporation, Mary Catherine claimed corresponding net operating             
          losses (NOLs) attributable to the reductions in value.  As a                
          result of the NOLs claimed on Mary Catherine’s returns, the                 
          Pierces claimed flowthrough losses on their 1989, 1990, and 1991            
          personal Federal income tax returns.   They then carried back               
          those losses to obtain refunds of the taxes they had paid for               
          1984 and 1986 through 1989.3                                                
               Respondent determined that the Pierces were not entitled to            
          the claimed losses and resulting refunds.  As a result,                     
          respondent determined deficiencies of $3,513, $71,974, $539,914,            
          $527,851, and $102,323 in the Pierces’ income tax for the years             
          1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989, respectively.  The Pierces                
          filed a petition with this Court (docket No. 6226-94) on April              
          18, 1994, alleging error with respect to respondent’s                       
          determination of income tax deficiencies.                                   
               The deficiency proceeding was consolidated with another                
          case, relating to a tax year not in issue in the current                    
          controversy.  Following the consolidated trial, we held that:               
          (1) Mary Catherine was not entitled to the losses from writedowns           
          of the values of the Ridge and Minnechaug, (2) the Pierces were             
          liable for the income tax deficiencies determined by respondent,            
          and (3) the Pierces were not liable for the accuracy-related                


               3 For purposes of deciding this case only a general                    
          description of these transactions is required.  For more detailed           
          explanations, see Pierce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-411.              




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