Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль


Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / Frederic W. Mercer v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 1997-131, Docket No. 1666-95., Filed March 12, 1997

Frederic W. Mercer v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 1997-131, Docket No. 1666-95., Filed March 12, 1997

24.06.2008  

Frederic W. Mercer v. Commissioner.

United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision

T.C. Memo. 1997-131

Docket No. 1666-95.

Filed March 12, 1997.

Frederic W. Mercer, pro se. 1 Donald E. Edwards, for the respondent.

**********

1 Richard Mildren, who has not been admitted to practice before this Court, appeared on behalf of petitioner. Based on Mr. Mildren's representation that he possessed the requirements needed to be admitted to practice before this Court, we specially recognized him to represent petitioner at trial.

**********

MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income tax:

**********

2 All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

**********

The issues remaining for decision are: 3

**********

3 In the stipulation of facts in this case, petitioner conceded all of the income determinations in the notice of deficiency (notice) for each of the years at issue except a determination described in the notice as a "capital gain/loss adjustment" in the amount of $45. At trial, petitioner presented no evidence and made no argument about that determination, and we conclude that he does not dispute it.

**********

(1) Is petitioner entitled to a net operating loss deduction for each of the years at issue that is attributable to an alleged net operating loss carryover from his taxable year 1985? We hold that he is not.

(2) Is petitioner liable for each of the years at issue for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1)? We hold that he is.

(3) Is petitioner liable for each of the years at issue for the addition to tax under section 6654? We hold that he is.

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

Petitioner resided in Laguna Beach, California, at the time the petition was filed.

Petitioner, who used the cash method of accounting for each of the years 1986, 1988, 1990, and 1991, failed to file a Federal income tax return for any of those years.

Although the record does not disclose the exact nature of his activities, during the 1980's, petitioner was involved in real estate, real estate investments, and real estate securities.

Petitioner has the burden to show that he is entitled to the net operating loss deductions that he is claiming and that he is not liable for the additions to tax determined under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654. Rule 142(a).

Except for his general and conclusory testimony that he had a net operating loss of approximately $55,000 for his taxable year 1985, petitioner has presented no evidence to establish the income that he had and the expenses to which he is entitled for 1985, and consequently he has not shown that he had a net operating loss for that year. 4

**********

4 Assuming arguendo that petitioner had established that he had a net operating loss for 1985, he has not shown (1) that that loss was not fully utilized when it was carried back to each of the three years preceding 1985 as required by sec. 172(b)(1)(A) or (2) that he made an election to relinquish the carryback of that loss pursuant to sec. 172(b)(3)(C).

**********

Petitioner presented no evidence and advanced no argument regarding the additions to tax determined in the notice.

On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed to show that he is entitled to the net operating loss deductions that he is claiming for the years at issue. We further find that he has failed to establish error in respondent's determinations under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654. Accordingly, we reject petitioner's claim for net operating loss deductions for the years at issue and sustain respondent's determinations imposing the additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654 for those years.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered for respondent.

Разместить:

Вы также можете   зарегистрироваться  и/или  авторизоваться  

   

Электронный документ: вчера, сегодня, завтра

Несколько последних публикаций экспертов Synerdocs были посвящены электронным документам в судах и развитию системы электронного правосудия. В настоящей статье хотелось бы подвести некоторый итог и поднять вопрос о будущем электронного правосудия в России. А оно, как вы понимаете, напрямую связано с электронными документами

Чек-лист для проверки электронного документа на юридическую значимость

В этом году мы много говорили о представлении электронных документов в суд, не скупились на советы и рекомендации. При этом давно не поднимали тему юридической значимости. Пожалуй, с этого стоило начать цикл статей про электронное правосудие. Предлагаю обсудить, из чего же складывается юридическая значимость любого документа, и на что стоит обратить внимание при проверке документа на соответствие требованиям действующего законодательства в области ЭДО. Информация будет полезна всем: кто уже работает с электронными аналогами и тем, кто только открывает для себя новую область знаний.

ТОП-5 трудностей представления электронных документов в суд

Электронные документы «пробиваются» в российские суды уже на протяжении семи лет. В 2010 году была внесена первая поправка в статью 41 Арбитражного процессуального кодекса РФ, позволившая участникам судебного процесса представлять в Арбитражный суд документы в электронном виде. С этого момента вносилось множество изменений и дополнений в различные правовые акты, были изданы новые нормативные документы (подробнее об этом читайте в материалах авторов Synerdocs в конце этой статьи)