Murray v. Commissioner
Opinion
*306 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
LARO, JUDGE: This case was submitted to the Court without trial under Rule 122. Petitioners petitioned the Court to redetermine a $ 1,072,177 deficiency in their 1993 Federal income tax, a $ 268,044 addition thereto under
*307 BACKGROUND
All facts were either stipulated or found from the exhibits which the parties submitted with their stipulations of fact. Those stipulations of fact and exhibits submitted therewith are incorporated herein by this reference, and the stipulations of fact are found accordingly. Petitioners are husband and wife. They resided in Longwood, Florida, when we filed their petition.
Petitioners filed with the Commissioner a joint 1993 Federal income tax return on September 26, 1995. They claimed on that return a $ 455,160 capital loss attributable to $ 317,424 and $ 137,736 of losses reportedly passing through to them from S corporations named Poinciana Mobile Home Park, Inc. (Poinciana), and Franklin Funding Company of Florida, Inc. (Franklin), respectively. Petitioners now concede that they may not deduct either loss.
Mr. Murray is Poinciana's sole shareholder. Poinciana owned and operated a mobile home park (the park) until the park was foreclosed in 1993. Petitioners realized a $ 1,626,868 gain on the foreclosure but did not recognize this gain on their 1993 Federal income tax return. They reported instead the $ 317,424 loss mentioned above.
DISCUSSION
We must decide whether*308 petitioners may deduct in 1993 an unreported loss on the claimed worthlessness of Mr. Murray's Poinciana stock. Petitioners assert that the stock became worthless as a result of the park's foreclosure and that Mr. Murray's basis in that stock at the time of worthlessness was $ 1,626,868; i.e., the same amount as the gain realized on the foreclosure.
We hold that petitioners have failed to meet their burden of proving that Mr. Murray's Poinciana stock became worthless in 1993. Petitioners rely primarily on their bald assertions on brief to the effect that the stock became worthless at the time of the foreclosure. These assertions do not persuade us that the stock became worthless in 1993. See
To reflect concessions,
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
Footnotes
1. Petitioners allege in their petition in relevant part that respondent erred in determining: (1) Michael E. Murray (Mr. Murray) realized a gain on the foreclosure described herein and (2) Linda S. Murray is not an innocent spouse. We consider petitioners to have conceded the latter allegation because: (1) They did not list the allegation as an issue when they informed the Court at the calendar call of the issues still in dispute, (2) they have introduced into the record no evidence as to the allegation, and (3) their posttrial briefs include no reference to the allegation. For the same reason, we also consider petitioners to have conceded the addition to tax and accuracy-related penalty.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.