William A. Egan - Page 2

                                         -2-                                          
          are asked to decide whether petitioner is entitled to deduct                
          $158,381 as a business bad debt in 1998 under section 166 and               
          whether the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) should           
          apply.  We hold that petitioner is not entitled to deduct                   
          $158,381 as a business bad debt and that the accuracy-related               
          penalty applies.                                                            
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulation of facts and the accompanying exhibits are                  
          incorporated by this reference.  Petitioner resided in Anoka,               
          Minnesota, at the time he filed the petition in this case.                  
               Petitioner has owned and operated Egan Oil, a sole                     
          proprietorship, for 43 years.  Egan Oil is a distributor of Exxon           
          Mobil petroleum products.  Egan Oil purchases petroleum products            
          from Exxon Mobil and then resells them to customers such as                 
          service stations and convenience stores.                                    
               One of Egan Oil’s customers was Brooks Foods, Inc. (Brooks             
          Foods), a chain of food stores owned by a prominent local                   
          businessman named Brooks Hauser.  Mr. Hauser encountered business           
          difficulties in 1993 and 1994 and fell behind on his payments to            
          Egan Oil for petroleum products Brooks Foods had purchased.                 
          Petitioner knew Mr. Hauser was attempting to rebuild his business           
          and was seeking to refinance.  To protect himself from the                  
          rapidly increasing balance, petitioner decided to allow only a              

               2(...continued)                                                        
          petitioner’s net farm loss and respondent’s reduction of                    
          petitioner’s home mortgage interest deduction.                              




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011