- 10 -
rect petitioners’ 2002 amended return.
In their pretrial memorandum, during trial, and on brief,
petitioners focused only on the increases in short-term capital
gains and long-term capital losses of $4,234.94 and $15,949.06,
respectively, claimed in petitioners’ 2002 amended return, and
not on any of the determinations in the 2002 notice that respon-
dent did not concede, including the $8 WSB interest determina-
tion. (We shall refer to the claimed respective increases in
short-term capital gains and long-term capital losses as peti-
tioners’ alleged capital gain issue and petitioners’ alleged
capital loss issue, respectively.) It was only when the Court
asked Mr. Kim, petitioners’ only witness at trial, about the $8
WSB interest determination that petitioners even addressed that
determination. The following exchange took place during Mr.
Kim’s direct testimony:
THE COURT: * * * you also don’t have any informa-
tion about the interest income from Washington Savings
Bank?
THE WITNESS: No. No. Actually, when we prepare
the 1040 for 2002, I mean, we diligently tried to get
an information, diligently tried to report every income
we have, even penny, but, I mean, there may be, I don’t
know, maybe some other matter. But we still believe
that what we reported is very, very accurate and the
7(...continued)
petitioners’ amended 2002 Schedule D did not entitle petitioners
to a larger net capital loss deduction for 2002. However, the
increased net capital loss claimed in petitioners’ amended 2002
Schedule D did affect the amount of petitioners’ claimed capital
loss carryover to other taxable years.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007