Michael W. Keller - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          reported the following:                                                     
               Farm income, sales of livestock    $152,059                            
               Depreciation                  (247,842)                                
               Interest expense                   (8,830)                             
               “1994 Sharecropboard Exp”          (121,647)                           
               “Expense for the cost basis of                                         
               purchased cattle that died”        (76,558)                            
               Net farm profit or (loss)     (302,818)                                
          With respect to the depreciation deduction, petitioner attached a           
          depreciation schedule reporting a cost basis in his “registured             
          [sic] cattle” of $880,423.  Petitioner subtracted his net farm              
          loss of $302,818 from wage and interest income totaling $72,942             
          for total negative income of $229,876.  Petitioner reported zero            
          taxable income and zero tax due.  Petitioner reported taxes                 
          withheld of $11,773 and requested a refund of that amount, which            
          respondent issued.                                                          
               In December 1995, petitioner also filed a Form 1045 seeking            
          to carry back to 1991, 1992, and 1993 net operating losses of               
          $231,952 realized in 1994.  As a result of the carryback,                   
          petitioner reported decreases in tax of $10,662, $9,035, and                

               5(...continued)                                                        
          Schedules F as if he were directly involved in the farming                  
          activity.                                                                   
               Respondent issued to petitioner a notice of final                      
          partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) with respect to his            
          partnership interest in DGE.  In a motion to dismiss for lack of            
          jurisdiction, petitioner argued that this Court lacked                      
          jurisdiction over the Schedule F items because they were                    
          partnership items or affected items, referring to the FPAA.                 
          Petitioner’s motion was denied because the Court concluded that             
          the Schedule F items were not partnership items or affected                 
          items.                                                                      





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