Bidyut K. Bhattacharyya and Diana T. Bhattacharyya - Page 31

                                       - 31 -                                         
          his nonqualified stock options and to acquire other stock.  The             
          costs of acquiring stock, a capital asset, are capital in nature            
          and are not currently deductible but instead are included in the            
          stock’s tax basis.  See Woodward v. Commissioner, 397 U.S. 572,             
          575 (1970); Lychuk v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 374, 388-389 (2001);           
          Pappas v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-127; see also secs. 1012,           
          1221(a).  Therefore, we find that petitioners are not entitled to           
          deduct the “Cash Pay” and “Other” expenses.                                 
               As described above, respondent met his burden of proving               
          that petitioners are entitled to itemized deductions of only                
          $243,363 and miscellaneous itemized deductions of only $84,581.             
          However, petitioners argue that they are entitled to deduct the             
          claimed expenses in full in 2000 because respondent allowed them            
          to deduct similar expenses in 1999.18  Petitioners’ argument is             
          without merit.  Each taxable year stands alone, and respondent              
          may challenge in a succeeding year what was condoned or agreed to           
          in a former year.  Rose v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 28, 31-32                  
          (1970); Jeanmarie v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-337; Boatner             


               18  Petitioners also argue that respondent cannot challenge            
          their itemized deductions because the Court admitted into                   
          evidence Exhibit 38-P.  Exhibit 38-P was offered by petitioners             
          as a summary of their arguments.  Similar to their argument                 
          regarding Exhibit 42-R, discussed supra pp. 15-16, petitioners’             
          argument is based on a misunderstanding of the Court’s                      
          evidentiary ruling.  The admission of Exhibit 38-P into evidence            
          does not establish the truth of petitioners’ assertions made in             
          that exhibit, nor does it preclude respondent from contesting               
          those assertions.                                                           




Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011