River City Ranches #1 Ltd., Leon Shepard, Tax Matters Partner - Page 91

                                        - 76 -                                         
          partnerships would receive the relief from theft intended by                 
          Congress.  The facts in the instant case are clearly                         
          distinguishable from the unique facts in Rod Warren Ink and do               
          not warrant a departure from the year of discovery requirement               
          under section 165(e).                                                        
                    (iii) Petitioners’ Year of Discovery Claim                         
               We have decided that equitable estoppel and the holding in              
          Rod Warren Ink v. Commissioner, supra, have no application in                
          this case.  Thus, petitioners have failed to establish that a                
          departure from the literal meaning of section 165(e) is warranted            
          to allow the partnerships to claim theft loss deductions in any              
          of the years at issue.  Accordingly, a theft loss deduction, if              
          proven, would only be allowed in the year of discovery.  See sec.            
          165(e).  Because petitioners admit that the partnerships did not             
          discover the alleged theft losses until 1997 or 1998, the year of            
          discovery requirement in section 165(e) precludes a theft loss               
          deduction in any of the years at issue.  See sec. 6226.                      
                    c.     The Remaining Elements of a Theft Loss                      
               Although failure to prove only one of the elements of a                 
          theft loss prohibits a taxpayer from claiming the deduction,                 
          petitioners have failed to establish two essential elements of a             
          theft loss deduction.  Namely, (1) that the partnerships were                
          victims of theft and (2) that the year of discovery was a year               
          before the Court.  Since we have held that the partnerships are              






Page:  Previous  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  76  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011