CMA Consolidated, Inc. & Subsidiaries, Inc. - Page 96

                                       - 62 -                                         
          complex multiparty transactions were entered into on August 31,             
          September 1, September 28, and November 27, 1995; and on October            
          31, 1996, and September 1, 1997.17                                          
               3.  Petitioner’s Rental Expense Deductions and Note                    
          Disposition Losses                                                          
                                                                                     
               On its 1995 tax return, petitioner claimed CMACM’s purported           
          $1,982,825 loss from partial disposition of the $4,056,220                  
          Jenrich note to Okoma, resulting in petitioner’s $404,000 NOL for           
          1996.  On its 1996 tax return, petitioner reported that CMACM had           
          a $469,221 cost basis for the portion of the $4,056,220 note                
          transferred to Lexington for an unsecured $10,000 promissory note           
          on October 31, 1996.  On the basis of that, petitioner claimed              
          CMACM’s $459,221 loss on the partial disposition of the Jenrich             
          note.  Petitioner also claimed $414,041 as rental expenses on its           
          1996 tax return attributable to CMACM’s 1996 purported over lease           
          rental payments.  CMACM’s claimed rental expenses equaled, and              
          were completely offset by, the amounts due petitioner under                 
          Jenrich’s equipment purchase installment note.                              




               17Attached to this opinion as app. A is a 3-page, 17-step              
          flow chart reflecting the basic elements of the transactions.               
          Attached as app. B is a single-page summary of app. A.  Apps. A             
          and B were prepared by respondent and used during the trial as an           
          aid to understanding the various steps in the questioned                    
          transactions.  The appendixes were not received in evidence, but            
          were marked for purposes of identification.  These charts are               
          included solely to aid in better understanding the complex fact             
          pattern in this case.                                                       





Page:  Previous  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011