- 6 -
part, stated:
However, at no time did I agree, or express an opinion,
as to a particular year in which the expenditures at
issue (which I consider to be capital) would be
deductible, since this would be based upon facts and
circumstances that I am not now aware of, or at least
aware of in total. I think that any such conclusion as
to the proper year is premature by any of us since not
all of the Barela tax returns (including, in
particular, the return for calendar year 1999) have yet
been filed, let alone reviewed by Eric or me.
Neither Mr. Koll nor petitioner attempted to respond, or
dispute the contentions in respondent’s letter. Petitioner did
not seek to withdraw or to have vacated the decision entered for
1998.
Petitioner filed his 1999 Federal tax return during April
2003 and claimed in that return the $5,433 loss disallowed for
1998. Petitioner contends that an agreement was reached with
respondent providing that the $5,433 amount would be allowed for
1999. Respondent denies the existence of such an agreement.
Petitioner timely appealed to this Court for review of
respondent’s determination for 1999.
OPINION
The controversy in this case involves two issues. Firstly,
whether petitioner is entitled to itemized deductions in excess
of those allowed or conceded by respondent. The second issue
concerns whether there was an agreement between petitioner and
respondent with respect to the deductibility of the $5,433 for
the 1999 year. As a preliminary matter, we note that petitioner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011