Estate of Deniro v. Comm'r

1990 T.C. Memo. 398, 60 T.C.M. 300, 1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 415
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJuly 30, 1990
DocketDocket Nos. 9178-76, 17347-80
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1990 T.C. Memo. 398 (Estate of Deniro v. Comm'r) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Estate of Deniro v. Comm'r, 1990 T.C. Memo. 398, 60 T.C.M. 300, 1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 415 (tax 1990).

Opinion

ESTATE OF VINCENT DeNIRO, DECEASED HELEN M. PAPALIA ADMINISTRATRIX, LOUIS R. DeNIRO, TRANSFEREE, FRANK DeNIRO, TRANSFEREE, and MICHAEL DeNIRO, TRANSFEREE, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent; ESTATE OF JAMES V. DeNIRO, DECEASED, HELEN M. PAPALIA, ADMINISTRATRIX, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Estate of Deniro v. Comm'r
Docket Nos. 9178-76, 17347-80
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1990-398; 1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 415; 60 T.C.M. (CCH) 300; T.C.M. (RIA) 90398;
July 30, 1990, Filed
*415

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

James C. Herndon, William T. Walker, 1 and Robert W. Malone, for the petitioners.
Richard S. Bloom, for the respondent.
PARR, Judge.

PARR

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

Respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to tax as follows:

2 Docket No. 9178-76
Addition to Tax
YearDeficiencySec. 6651(a)(1)
1969$ 46,268.20$ 11,567.05  
Docket No. 17347-80
YearDeficiency
1979$ 10,602.85

Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and in effect for the taxable years 1969 and 1979. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Docket No. 9178-76 is before this Court on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for a second time. 3*416

In Estate of DeNiro v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-128, John H. Rogan (herein "Mr. Rogan"), a certified public accountant employed by National Cigarette Service of Youngstown (herein "NCS"), testified that as of January 1, 1969, NCS had a deficit accumulated earnings and profits (herein "E & P") of $ 96,335.90. We found his testimony highly questionable. Accordingly, we found petitioner failed to carry its burden of proving that the $ 89,257.04 payment NCS made on behalf of the Estate was something other than dividend income to the Estate.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found Mr. Rogan's unrebutted testimony not "improbable, unreasonable, or questionable," and concluded it was inherently unfair to discredit it when Mr. Rogan was a credible witness. Accordingly, it reversed and remanded the case with specific instructions as follows:

The Court (1) shall consider Rogan's testimony as adequate to meet the Estate's initial burden on the issue of whether NCS's payment should be characterized as a dividend and (2) shall permit the Commissioner to cross-examine Rogan, to present impeachment evidence, *417 and to present rebuttal evidence with respect to NCS's accumulated earnings and profits. [Estate of DeNiro v. Commissioner, 795 F.2d 582, 585 (6th Cir. 1986).]



The Court also stated "the Tax Court may also consider the Commissioner's argument that the entire amount paid by NCS is taxable as a discharge of obligations" under section 61(a)(12). Estate of DeNiro v. Commissioner, supra.

On September 26, 1988, pursuant to such mandate, respondent cross-examined Mr. Rogan.

These cases were consolidated for trial, briefing, and opinion.

I. Docket No. 9178-76

The issue for decision is whether respondent sufficiently rebutted Mr. Rogan's testimony that, as of December 31, 1969, NCS had insufficient E & P to characterize the full $ 89,257.04 distribution as a dividend.

II. Docket No. 17347-80

The issues for decision are whether petitioner (1) received $ 56,098.59 interest income; and (2) is allowed a $ 15,500 deduction for attorney fees.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly. The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated herein.

Petitioner, an estate (herein "petitioner" or the "Estate"), was domiciled in and administered under *418

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Flannery
268 U.S. 98 (Supreme Court, 1925)
Miles v. Graham
268 U.S. 501 (Supreme Court, 1925)
Commissioner v. Wheeler
324 U.S. 542 (Supreme Court, 1945)
Hillsboro National Bank v. Commissioner
460 U.S. 370 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Rose v. Dobbs
36 F.2d 464 (Fifth Circuit, 1929)
Rogan v. Mertens
153 F.2d 937 (Ninth Circuit, 1946)
Helvering v. Jarvis
123 F.2d 742 (Fourth Circuit, 1941)
Wichita Term. El. Co. v. Commissioner of Int. R.
162 F.2d 513 (Tenth Circuit, 1947)
Stern Bros. & Co. v. Commissioner
16 T.C. 295 (U.S. Tax Court, 1951)
Jergens v. Commissioner
17 T.C. 806 (U.S. Tax Court, 1951)
Stein v. Commissioner
25 T.C. 940 (U.S. Tax Court, 1956)
Latendresse v. Commissioner
26 T.C. 318 (U.S. Tax Court, 1956)
Stark v. Commissioner
29 T.C. 122 (U.S. Tax Court, 1957)
American Enka Corp. v. Commissioner
30 T.C. 684 (U.S. Tax Court, 1958)
Deutsch v. Commissioner
38 T.C. 118 (U.S. Tax Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1990 T.C. Memo. 398, 60 T.C.M. 300, 1990 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-deniro-v-commr-tax-1990.