Hardy v. Commissioner
Opinion
*214
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case is before us on remand from an unpublished order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit filed October 29, 1990. The Court of Appeals affirmed our opinion in
The issue presented to this Court involved the deductibility of start-up or pre-opening expenses. At the trial, despite the Court's suggestion that petitioner Arthur H. Hardy (petitioner) might wish to raise, in the alternative, his entitlement to a theft loss deduction for 1982 with respect to the start-up expenses of the new venture, petitioner made no effort to introduce any evidence to establish a theft loss. Most significantly, in their post-trial brief (and after receiving respondent's post-trial brief that had expressly addressed the issue of petitioner's entitlement to a theft loss), petitioners expressly and unequivocally disavowed*215 any claim by petitioner to a theft loss with regard to the expenses in question. Petitioners' brief stated (page 6a) as follows:
Based on such express disavowal of any claim to a theft loss deduction, we conclude that petitioners are not entitled to claim a theft loss for 1982.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1991 T.C. Memo. 187 (Hardy v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.