- 5 - be decreased in the amount of $1,657,609 to limit any loss incurred by you and the partnership in connection with the security transaction to the amount actually at risk in the transaction, pursuant to Internal Revenue Code §465(b)(4). 7. It is further determined that no deduction is allowed for any legal, accounting, consulting and advisory fees claimed in the amount of $125,000 since you failed to establish that such expenditures were incurred, and if incurred, are deductible under any provision of the Internal Revenue Code, including but not limited to Internal Revenue Code §§ 183 and 212. Alameda and petitioners filed separate petitions with this Court. Alameda’s petition was filed at docket No. 7810-05. On January 29, 2007, this Court entered a stipulated decision in the case at docket No. 7810-05. Petitioners’ petition assigned error to all of the determinations respondent made in his notice of deficiency. Paragraph 4(g) of petitioners’ petition stated: The Commissioner erred in his determination that no deduction is allowed for any legal, accounting, consulting and advisory fees, claimed in the amount of $125,000, on the grounds that Petitioners failed to establish that such expenditures were incurred, and if incurred, are deductible under any provision of the Internal Revenue Code. On September 14, 2006, respondent moved to dismiss the case herein for lack of jurisdiction upon the ground that the notice of deficiency was invalid under section 6225. On November 3, 2006, petitioners notified the Court that they did not object to respondent’s motion. On November 14, 2006, the Court issued an order to the parties requesting responses, via a written status report, to the following: (1) Why Alameda does not fall underPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007