Sid Paul Ruckriegel - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          $193,253 in 2000.  No adjusting journal entries were made on any            
          of the above-mentioned Paulan and Sidal trial balances to                   
          recharacterize either Paulan’s July 11 payment to Sidal or any of           
          the principal and interest payments by Sidal to Paulan as                   
          consistent with, first, loans by Paulan to petitioners and, then,           
          loans by petitioners to Sidal.                                              
               The November 24 Wire Transfer Payments                                 
               The source of the wire transfer payments is not clear from             
          the record.8  All of the Paulan and Sidal adjusted trial balances           
          in evidence, beginning with the adjusted trial balances for the             
          taxable year ending December 31, 1997, reflect the wire transfer            
          payments as $1 million loans from Paulan to each petitioner and             
          from each petitioner to Sidal.  Sidal made principal and interest           
          payments directly to Paulan in connection with the wire transfer            
          payments totaling $276,518 in 1998, $230,431 in 1999, and                   
          $299,561 in 2000.9                                                          






               8  The parties stipulated that the source of the wire                  
          transfer payments were the $2 million Merchants Bank loan, which            
          occurred on Dec. 8, 1997, 2 weeks after the wire transfer                   
          payments.                                                                   
               9  As noted, petitioners’ claims of basis in Sidal, under              
          sec. 1366(d)(1)(B), attributable to the wire transfer payments              
          were not challenged by respondent in connection with the audit of           
          petitioners’ 1997 and 1998 returns.                                         





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