DocketNumber: Docket No. 17057-83.
Citation Numbers: 50 T.C.M. 536, 1985 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 249, 1985 T.C. Memo. 374
Filed Date: 7/29/1985
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COHEN,
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulation in incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioners were residents of Redlands, California, at the time they filed their petition herein.They filed a joint individual income tax return for 1977 with the Internal Revenue Service Center in Fresno, California.
On or about December 31, 1977, petitioner Percy T.W. Lui (petitioner) entered into a series of agreements relating to the so-called Moniteau Coal Venture. Prior to execution of the agreements but in relation to his investment in the venture, petitioner paid $12,000 by check. The agreements were executed on his behalf by the venture administrator as attorney-in-fact.
Petitioner's interest in the venture was reflected in a sublease, with petitioner as sublessee, relating to "an undivided interest in the coal deposits and the mining rights and privileges appurtenant thereto in the Property (hereinafter defined and described)." Attached to the sublease (as Exhibit 1) were the legal descriptions of four parcels of property. Each of the parcels was*251 described in terms
The sublease provided for a "minimum annual royalty" of $4,500.07. The royalties for the first 10 years, however, were to be paid upon execution of the sublease by check in the amount of $8,228.77 and a nonrecourse promissory note for $36,771.93. The promissory note was secured by the participant's interest under the sublease and payable only out of proceeds of production of coal from the properties.
On their 1977 tax return, petitioners claimed deductions of $48,247 in relation to the Moniteau Coal Venture, comprised of $45,000.70 advance royalties and $3,246.67 in miscellaneous expenses.
In December 1978, petitioners received a purported accounting from the coal venture and a check dated December 26, 1978, in the amount of $1,097.16.
OPINION
Petitioners have the burden of proving that they are entitled to the deductions that they claim.
There was no evidence in this case that any coal was produced or sold during 1977 (or, for that matter, at any time).Because the transaction was reflected in documents dated December 31 of that year, we assume that none was sold or produced during that year for the account of petitioner. From the face of the documents, it appears that any production of coal would have been subject to claims of the persons to whom rights to coal had been granted in prior conveyances!
Although certain provisions of the agreement were labeled "minimum annual royalty," the label was refuted by the terms of payment, i.e., 10 years advance payment, primarily in the form of a promissory note payable only out of coal production. See, e.g.,
(3) The payor shall treat the advanced royalties paid or accrued in connection with mineral property as deductions from gross income for the year the mineral product, in respect of which the advanced royalties were paid or accrued, is sold. For purposes of the preceding sentence, in the case of mineral sold before production the mineral product is considered to be sold when the mineral is produced (
Petitioners' failure of proof extends also to the issue of whether the claimed loss is precluded by the absence of a profit objective. Petitioner testified that he was a medical doctor and relied on the program administrator to see that necessary steps were taken. No evidence was presented, however, that any steps were taken or that steps actually taken were reasonably related to an actual and honest profit objective. See
Petitioners' counsel requested and was granted time to file a brief. The brief totally failed to discuss the evidence presented at trial, particularly the*255 peculiarity that the legal descriptions of the property from which coal was purportedly to be produced excluded rights to coal. Thirty-eight pages of brief merely argued the applicability and validity of
We take judicial notice that this brief was substantially similar to the briefs filed by the same counsel in numerous other cases in which his arguments were rejected, e.g., four cases in which opinions were filed July 15, 1985,
1. See also