Логин или email Регистрация Пароль Я забыл пароль


Войти при помощи:

Судебные дела / Зарубежная практика  / Reginald Maurice Dawson v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 1995-395, Docket No. 7437-94., Filed August 16, 1995

Reginald Maurice Dawson v. Commissioner., United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision, T.C. Memo. 1995-395, Docket No. 7437-94., Filed August 16, 1995

25.06.2008  

Reginald Maurice Dawson v. Commissioner.

United States Tax Court - Memorandum Decision

T.C. Memo. 1995-395

Docket No. 7437-94.

Filed August 16, 1995.

Reginald Maurice Dawson, pro se. Reginald R. Corlew, for the respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

PARKER, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax for the taxable year 1991 in the amount of $10,004 and additions to the tax under section 6651(a) in the amount of $1,091.25 and under section 6654(a) in the amount of $214.96.

Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year before the Court, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The issue is whether petitioner is entitled to any deductions for travel expenses, worthless stock, or other losses.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following facts have been stipulated and are so found: 1

**********

1 The stipulation of facts and the exhibit attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.

**********

Petitioner resided in Jacksonville, Florida, at the time the petition was filed. Petitioner failed to file a U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, for the taxable year 1991.

In 1991 petitioner had the following income:

Petitioner's filing status is married, filing separately. He is entitled to one personal exemption, and has total withholding credits in the amount of $5,639.

Apart from the above stipulated facts, there is no probative evidence in the record. In his petition, petitioner claimed deductions for travel expenses, worthless stock, and other losses. At the trial, petitioner presented no documentation or information to substantiate any of his claimed deductions.

Petitioner testified that in 1991 he had purchased what he thought was all of the stock of a corporation operating a pizza business. He further testified that after he had been operating the pizza business for about 2 months, an individual appeared at the business, announcing that he owned the other half of the stock of the corporation and that the sale to petitioner by the other shareholder had been illegal. Apparently litigation ensued, with the result that petitioner was removed from the business premises and any business records he had on the premises could not be removed.

It is not clear whether petitioner is claiming deductions for the corporation's business expenses or is claiming a capital loss. 2 After a partial trial, the Court kept the record open to permit petitioner to furnish documentation and further information to substantiate his claims. When no documentation or information was forthcoming, the record was closed. 3

**********

2 The Court indicated on the record that petitioner may be entitled to a capital loss deduction, but that petitioner must submit evidence to document his loss. The record does not show when litigation in regard to the pizza business occurred. The record does not establish what petitioner paid for the stock or when his stock may have become worthless.

3 The notice setting this case for trial was served on August 5, 1994, setting the case for trial during a trial session in Jacksonville, Florida, commencing January 9, 1995. A partial trial was held on January 13, 1995. The parties were directed to appear for an oral status report at the commencement of a special trial session in Jacksonville, Florida, on February 6, 1995. Petitioner appeared at that time, but had not obtained any documents or information. The parties were directed to submit written status reports on May 8, 1995. Petitioner did not respond. Respondent reported that petitioner had not submitted any additional information or documents. The Court then allowed petitioner a further and final period of time, to and including July 7, 1995, within which to submit any further information and documentation in regard to his alleged stock loss. Nothing was forthcoming, and the evidentiary record was closed by order dated July 27, 1995.

**********

OPINION

Petitioner has stipulated and agreed to all of the facts supporting the determinations in the statutory notice of deficiency. There are no issues as to which respondent bears the burden of proof. The burden of establishing error in the deficiency notice or establishing claims raised in his petition or raised at trial rests upon petitioner. Welch v. Helvering [3 USTC ╤ 1164], 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933); Rule 142(a). He has failed to carry his burden.

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)