- 3 - permit each of them to deduct his pro rata share of Sidal’s ordinary losses, to the extent of $329,7972 for 1999 and $492,588 for 2000 (sometimes, the basis issue).3 The notices of deficiency contain certain other adjustments that are purely computational. Their resolution solely depends upon our resolution of the basis issue. 2 The parties stipulate that Sid Paul Ruckriegel’s (Sid’s) 1999 deduction for Sidal’s 1999 losses was $324,750, but Sid’s 1999 return confirms that he reported a 1999 loss of $329,797 from Sidal. That is also the amount of the Sidal loss respondent disallowed in the notice of deficiency issued to Sid. Erroneous stipulations are not binding on this Court. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 135, 159-160 n.4 (1986), affd. 914 F.2d 396 (3d Cir. 1990). Therefore, we find that Sid’s 1999 reported loss from Sidal is $329,797. 3 In his notices of deficiency, respondent also made adjustments, pursuant to sec. 267(a)(2), increasing each petitioner’s “passthrough” income from Sidal by $12,407 for 1999 and $37,233 for 2000 attributable to Sidal’s disallowed deductions for interest owed to a related party. Respondent characterizes the adjustments, both on brief and in his notices of deficiency, as increases in each petitioner’s interest income from Sidal. Although petitioners assign error to those adjustments in their petitions, they make no argument either in their trial memoranda or on brief concerning the adjustments. Consequently, we consider the adjustments to have been conceded by petitioners. See Nicklaus v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 117, 120 n.4 (2001); Rybak v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 524, 566 n.19 (1988); Zimmerman v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 94, 104 n.7 (1976).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