Case law

Tregre v. Commissioner

71 T.C.M. 3098 · United States Tax Court · May 23, 1996

Investment Tax Credit Respondent also determined that petitioner is not entitled to an investment tax credit in the amount of $821 for 1982 because it has not been established that petitioner acquired any qualified … Accordingly, we conclude that respondent has clearly and convincingly established that an underpayment exists for each of the taxable years at issue.

Pinson v. Commissioner

58 T.C.M. 1420 · United States Tax Court · Feb 20, 1990

As a preliminary matter, *79 it is necessary to establish what evidence the record encompasses prior to making findings of fact. … Our Rules do not establish any time frame for exchanging or filing reports of post trial expert witnesses.

Fox v. Commissioner

80 T.C. 972 · United States Tax Court · May 18, 1983

the proper depreciable bases of those rights; (6) Whether the partnerships have established the deducti-bility of various miscellaneous items under either section 162 or section 212; (7) Whether the petitioners have established … In order to qualify for a section 163 deduction there must be a genuine indebtedness: To justify an interest deduction, a taxpayer must actually pay for the use or forebearance of money. Norton v.

Rosenfeld v. Commissioner

43 T.C.M. 1353 · United States Tax Court · May 12, 1982

May following the transfer of such building to the trusts established by him. 76 T.C. at 11 . The fact that the leaseback was pre-arranged did not prevent Dr. May from qualifying under the Mathews criteria. … Goldman were clearly aware of their fiduciary duties and, certainly when compared to the facts of May, took a much more active role in the administration of the trusts than did the nongrantor trustee in that case.

Hudspeth v. Commissioner

51 T.C.M. 175 · United States Tax Court · Dec 30, 1985

During the taxable year ended May 31, 1973, Hudspeth Pine harvested timber qualifying for treatment under section 631(a). … Loewen is also clearly distinguishable on its facts.

Goldstein v. Commissioner

40 T.C.M. 752 · United States Tax Court · Jul 28, 1980

The cases cited by respondent are clearly distinguishable. In United States v. … Only a bona fide debt qualifies for purposes of section 166 .

Belair Woods, LLC, Effingham Managers, LLC, Tax Matters Partner v. Commissioner

154 T.C. No. 1 · United States Tax Court · Jan 6, 2020

That term clearly is not a synonym for a mere suggestion or indication of a possibility that a penalty might be asserted. … The opinion of the Court concludes that Letter 1807 lacked the requisite formality to qualify as an “initial determination” and instead views it as an invitation to discuss the proposed penalty.

Stock v. Commissioner

35 T.C.M. 596 · United States Tax Court · Apr 29, 1976

Moreover it is obvious from the agreement, even if not clearly articulated, that the parties did not intend the payments to be conditional. … David's testimony, which was the only evidence on this issue presented by petitioner, clearly indicates that the deductions claimed were based on mere estimates as he kept no records which would establish the amount of business

Estate of Richard D. Spizzirri, John J. McAtee, Jr., Personal Representative

United States Tax Court · Feb 28, 2023

The parties here clearly took pains to keep the consideration for the relinquishment of each right separate and distinct, and we will not second guess their expressed intention. … Lueders’s children qualified for the marital deduction of section 2056(a), as the payments were plainly not made to Mr. Spizzirri’s surviving spouse. See Estate of Spencer v.

Estate of Bary v. Commissioner

24 T.C.M. 1790 · United States Tax Court · Dec 22, 1965

The estate's position on brief is that respondent's determination that the claim had a zero value at the time of decedent's death in 1940 is erroneous and it "is clearly incredible and it should be set aside." … The statute goes on to provide that if the award is not over $500 and there is no qualified executor or administrator, payment can be made to persons found entitled thereto by the Comptroller General.

Dapice v. Commissioner

46 T.C.M. 598 · United States Tax Court · Jun 27, 1983

The Martin case is clearly distinguishable from this case. … established by the evidence of actual payments *431 made for which the contractor was undoubtedly liable.

Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company and Consolidated Subsidiaries v. Commissioner

106 T.C. No. 27 · United States Tax Court · Jun 26, 1996

In order to qualify for deduction under section 162(a), five requirements must be satisfied. … Our review of the plan documents in question indicated that the reversion of any assets from the VEBA was clearly prohibited. Finally, in Moser v.

Carranza v. Comm'r

2009 T.C. Summary Opinion 28 · United States Tax Court · Feb 26, 2009

There is some evidence in this record that could support a finding that his work conditions were a contributing factor to some of his physical problems, but that was not the focus of the litigation and, clearly not the … Banks, 543 U.S. 426 (2005), the Supreme Court resolved those differences and held that the portion of the settlement paid to attorneys was income to the taxpayer under the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine established

Chief Indus. v. Comm'r

87 T.C.M. 1002 · United States Tax Court · Mar 2, 2004

An answer in the affirmative to any of these tests tends to establish that the settlement payment is deductible under section 162(a). … contractual obligations, in settlement of litigation, or pursuant to other actual or potential legal obligations or rights, may also be outside the intended scope of the provision to the extent it is clearly

Nicole Rose Corp., formerly Quintron Corporation v. Commissioner

117 T.C. No. 27 · United States Tax Court · Dec 28, 2001

In support, petitioner cites case authority and respondent’s rulings for the proposition that payments extinguishing lease obligations may qualify as ordinary and necessary business expense deductions. Hort v. … The participation of highly paid professionals provides petitioner no protection, excuse, justification, or immunity from the penalties in issue.

Guaderrama v. Commissioner

79 T.C.M. 1752 · United States Tax Court · Mar 28, 2000

Sale-Leaseback or Financing Arrangement The Guaderramas contend that the documents in this case label the transaction a lease, that they clearly possessed the benefits and burdens of ownership of Severo’s, and therefore … Guaderrama was apparently aware of this since Guaderrama’s attorney sent a letter to a bank expressing interest in selling the property to Benavidez in order to help Benavidez qualify for a loan.

Estate of Gore v. Comm'r

93 T.C.M. 1436 · United States Tax Court · Jun 27, 2007

The reality established by the record is that Ms. … TCO had clearly outlined what steps needed to be taken to transfer Marital Fund stocks to GFLP months before decedent’s death. Nevertheless, Ms.

Carol M. Read v. Commissioner

114 T.C. No. 2 · United States Tax Court · Feb 4, 2000

According to petitioners, those cases establish that the on-behalf-of standard may be satisfied in the instant cases only if Mr. … The judicially created primary-and-unconditional-obligation standard is well established in the tax law.

Harper v. Commissioner

35 T.C.M. 256 · United States Tax Court · Mar 3, 1976

The burden of proof is on petitioner to establish that the property sold was not held by him primarily for sale *357 to customers in the ordinary course of a trade or business. S. O. Bynum, 46 T.C. 295 , 298 (1966) . … Petitioner did not submit any satisfactory evidence from which it could be determined whether any debt qualified for deduction in 1969 or 1970.

Porro v. Comm'r

107 T.C.M. 1428 · United States Tax Court · May 6, 2014

An abuse of discretion is defined as any action that is unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, clearly unlawful, or lacking a sound basis in fact or law. Thor Power Tool Co. v. … Petitioners have the burden to establish that the proceeds from the sale of the Miami home and the liquidation of petitioners’ interests in Terra Firma, Inc., were expended for their necessary and reasonable living expenses