TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Renee M. Bynum-Stroud
Docket Number: 29599-13
Judge: Gustafson
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/06/2015
Pages: 22

JRN UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 RENEE M. BYNUM-STROUD, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 29599-13. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to the opinion of the Court as set forth in the pages of the transcript of the proceedings at Washington, D.C., on March 24, 2015, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before the undersigned judge at Washington, D.C., containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered under Rule 155. (Signed) David Gustafson Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. April 6, 2015 SERVED Apr 07 2015 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge David Gustafson 2 March 24, 2015 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Renee M. Bynum-Stroud v. Commissioner Docket No. 29599-13 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render the following as its oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. This Bench Opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.), and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; and it shall not be relied on as precedent in any other case. By notice of deficiency dated September 24, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") determined deficiencies in the Federal income tax of petitioner Renee M. Bynum-Stroud for the years 2010 and 2011, along with accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a). The principal issues for decision are 19 whether Mrs. Stroud is entitled to deductions for (a) 20 21 22 23 24 25 dependency exemptions for her parents, (b) expenses claimed on Schedule E for two rental real properties, and (c) charitable contributions; and whether she is entitled to head-of-household status. For the reasons explained hereafter, we hold that she is entitled to head-of household status, but we largely 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 sustain the IRS's disallowance of her deductions. Trial of this case was conducted on March 23, 2015, in Washington, D.C. Ms. Stroud represented herself; and John D. Ellis represented respondent, the Commissioner. We find the following facts: FINDINGS OF FACT Ms. Stroud's background Ms. Stroud graduated from college in 1995 and since then has worked as an accountant. Since before the years at issue here she has worked as a "control specialist" for the Securities Exchange Commission, at which she earned wages of about $140,000 in 2010 and about $143,000 in 2011. Ms. Stroud has no particular tax accounting expertise. Ms. Stroud's marriage In 2004 Ms. Stroud married Mr. David Stroud, and they remain married today. However, they had a period of difficulty in the marriage, and in 2010 and 2011 they did not live together. Rather, Mr. Stroud lived elsewhere during those years. (They considered themselves separated, but they were not legally separated by court order.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Waldorf house 24 25 In 2005 Mr. Stroud acquired from his parents a house they had owned in Waldorf, Maryland. County 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 property records (Ex. 148-R) reflect a "price" of $220,000. However, those records also reflect that the transaction was "non-arms length"; and our trial record does not establish any actual payment having been made for the property. Ms. Stroud's name was not put on the deed at the time of the transfer; and the county records show Mr. Stroud as the sole owner of the Waldorf house. Mr. Stroud took out a mortgage loan for which the Waldorf house is collateral, and Ms. Stroud is not liable for that debt. Ms. Stroud did not establish that she made payments toward that debt. Mr. Stroud rented out the Waldorf house during the years at issue; and the tenant paid a total of $3,500 in 2010 (Ex. 103-J, Sch. E, line 3) and $3,300 in 2011 (Ex. 105-J, Sch. E, line 3b). Forms 1098 issued to Mr. Stroud show payment of mortgage interest of $19,659 in 2010 (Ex. 132-P) and $17,920 in 2011 (along with real estate tax of $3,195 and hazard insurance of $1,762 (Ex. 135-P)); but Ms. Stroud did not substantiate that she, rather than Mr. Stroud, paid those expenses. Our record does not substantiate further expenses associated with the rental of the Waldorf house. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wilson house 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Before Ms. Stroud was born, her parents acquired a house in Wilson, North Carolina. In 2002 Ms. Stroud lived in the D.C. area, but she expected that she might get a job in North Carolina, and she acquired that house from her parents with the expectation of living in it. Our record does not show (that is, Ms. Stroud did not prove) whether or what amount she paid her parents for the house. She received a promotion at her existing job and did not move to North Carolina, and she permitted her parents to continue to live there. As is explained below, Ms. Stroud's parents 13 moved out of the house in 2008, and by the years at 14 15 issue (2010 and 2011), the house was occupied by Ms. Stroud's sister, Bernadette Hall. (Sometime after 16 mid-2011, Ms. Stroud's mother moved back into the 17 18 19 20 21 22 house.) By Ms. Stroud's admission, the house had a fair rental value of $850 per month (i.e., $10,200 per year), but Ms. Hall paid a total of no more than $6,300 in rent in 2010 (see Ex. 103-J, Sched. E, line 3) and no more than $6,600 in 2011 (see Ex. 105-J, Sched. E,·line 3b). Ms. Stroud did not hold the 23 Wilson house out for rent at fair rental value. In 24 connection with the Wilson house, Ms. Stroud paid 25 mortgage interest of $6,223 and real estate tax of 866.488.DEPO .www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 3 4 5 $930 in 2010 (Ex. 129-P), and paid mortgage interest of $6,243 and real estate tax of $930 in 2011 (Ex. 134-P). Apart from interest and taxes (as well as hazard insurance of $358 in 2010 and $1,081 in 2011), our record does not substantiate expenses associated 6 with the rental of the Wilson house. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Ms. Stroud sometimes drove to Wilson and did work on the house. However, she sometimes combined these trips with drives to Hampton, Virginia (where her husband's parents lived, and which side trips bore no relation to the Wilson property), and she also naturally took the occasion of being in Wilson to visit her parents on these trips. We are unable to determine whether any of her trips to Wilson in 2010 and 2011 was exclusively or even primarily 16 motivated by work she did on the Wilson house; and 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 under the stringent standards for section 274, she did not prove specific miles driven for purposes related to the Wilson house. Ms. Stroud's records Ms. Stroud did not offer into evidence anything that could fairly be called books and records of a real estate rental activity. It is entirely unclear what she must have consulted in order to prepare her tax returns. We never saw any record on which she 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 kept track of rents received. When she later attempted to show her expenditures during the audit and at trial, she relied almost entirely on Forms 1098 prepared by mortgage lenders and copies of bank statements that she retrieved and then annotated after the fact. She showed no contemporaneous records of her real estate activity. Ms. Stroud's parents Ms. Stroud's father was injured in about 2008 and became a quadriplegic. Thereafter both parents stopped living in the Wilson house and moved to a rehabilitation facility called Guardian Care in nearby Rocky Mount (though they still used the Wilson house as a mailing address). Ms. Stroud does not know the cost of their stay at Guardian Care, nor the extent (if any) to which it was covered by Medicare or Medicaid. Her father died in January 2011, and her mother thereafter moved from Guardian Care, lived 19 with other relatives for several months, and then in 20 21 22 23 24 25 about July 2011 moved back to the Wilson house and lived there with Ms. Hall. Ms. Stroud's parents received social security retirement and disability payments totaling $26,641 in 2010 and $17,514 in 2011, and our record does not show what portion of that income was paid to Guardian 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Care. Ms. Stroud made occasional payments to or for her parents. She wrote $100 or $75 monthly checks to her mother in the first half of 2010. (Ex. 156-P.) For her parents' groceries she paid $82 in November 2010 (Ex. 138-P) and $188 in May 2011 (Ex. 111-P). She made $380 payments for her parents' truck in May and December 2010 and in May and December 2011, and she made $270 payments for their other car in June, November, and December 2010 and in May, June, September, and October 2011 (Exs. 137-P through 142-P). Beyond such amounts, she was unable convincingly to quantify any continuing, regular support she gave to her parents. 15 Contributions 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In the years at issue Ms. Stroud contributed used clothing and household items to Vietnam Veterans of America and AmVets National Service Foundation. The Commissioner does not dispute that these organizations are qualified to receive deductible contributions. Before making the contributions, Ms. Stroud prepared a spreadsheet showing a list of the items contributed. (Ex. 117-P.) Upon receiving the contribution, the organization gave Ms. Stroud a signed but undated receipt. (Ex. 119-P.) She 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 sometimes added a date to the receipt. Ms. Stroud's first pay statement for each year at issue (Exs. 120-P, 121-P) shows a $20 withholding for purposes of a "Charity Contribution". Our record substantiates no further cash contributions. Tax returns On a tax return for each of the years at issue (Exs. 102-J, 104-J), Ms. Stroud claimed head-of- household status, claimed her children and parents as dependents, reported her SEC wages, and reported on Schedule E the rental income from the Waldorf and 12 Wilson houses and claimed deductions in excess of 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that rental income (i.e., she reported a net loss from each. property). She also claimed deductions for non-cash charitable contributions of $500 in each year and cash contributions of $12,540 in 2010 and $13,580 in 2011. IRS examination The IRS examined Ms. Stroud's 2010 and 2011 tax returns. After the conclusion of the examination, the IRS: disallowed her claimed head-of-household status and used "single" status instead, disallowed the dependency deductions for her parents, disallowed the deductions claimed for the real estate activity reported on Schedule E, and disallowed all but $75 of 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 her non-cash contributions and all but $20 of her cash contributions in each year. The IRS issued the statutory notice of deficiency on September 24, 2013. In that notice the IRS determined deficiencies of tax and accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a). (During the course of the IRS's examination, Ms. Stroud had submitted amended returns (Exs. 103-J, 105-J); but the notice of deficiency made adjustments based on the original returns. Stip. 10.) On December 18, 2013, Ms. Stroud timely filed her petition in this Court challenging the IRS's determinations. At that time she resided in 13 Maryland. (Stip. 4.) Before trial the Commissioner 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conceded Ms. Stroud's entitlement to head-of- household status in 2010 (but not 2011). I. Burden of proof OPINION The IRS's determination is presumed correct, and the taxpayer generally bears the burden to prove his entitlement to any deductions he claims. Rule 142(a). Taxpayers must satisfy the specific requirements for any deduction claimed. See INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992). Furthermore, taxpayers are required to maintain records sufficient to substantiate their claimed 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 12 deductions. See sec. 6001; 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.6001-1(a); see also id. sec. -1(e) ("The books or records * * * shall be retained so long as the contents thereof may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law"). II. Filing status Section 1 of the Code provides the various rates at which income tax is imposed, with (inter alia) different rates for married individuals filing separately, see sec. 1(d), and heads of households, see sec. 1(b). Ms. Stroud filed her 2010 and 2011 returns as a head of household, and the Commissioner disputes the claim as to 2011 because he contends that Mr. and Mrs. Stroud lived together for that year. Section 2(b) defines head of household. As pertinent here, section 2(b)(1) provides that an individual shall be considered a head of a household if the individual is "not married" at the close of her tax year. Section 2(c) provides that an individual shall be treated as "not married" at the close of the tax year if the individual is so treated under section 7703(b). Section 7703(b) provides that an individual who is married shall not be considered as married if four 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 13 requirements are satisfied: (i) the individual files a separate tax return; (ii) the individual maintains a household that is for more than one-half of the taxable year the principal place of abode of a child for whom the taxpayer would be entitled to claim a dependency exemption; (iii) the individual pays more than half the cost of maintaining the household for the tax year; and (iv) the individual's spouse is not a member of the household during the last 6 months of the tax year. For purposes of sections 2 and 7703,"living apart require[s] geographical separation and living in separate residences." See McAdams v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 373, 378 (2002). Here, the pivotal issue is whether Mr. and Ms. Stroud were living apart in separate households in 2011 (as the Commissioner admits they were in 2010). We are persuaded that they were. The only significant evidence to the contrary is a statement by Mr. Stroud in testimony in another case; but in that other case 2011 was not at issue, and at the trial in this case Mr. Stroud persuasively explained that he made a misstatement in that previous testimony because he timed his return to the household by reference to the date of his father-in- law's death but was momentarily confused about the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company year in which that death occurred. Accordingly, for 2011 Ms. Stroud is treated as unmarried under section 7703(b), and she is entitled to claim the filing 14 status of head of household. III. Dependency deductions Section 151(a) of the Internal Revenue Code provides for a deduction for certain exemption amounts. Section 151(c) allows an exemption for "each individual who is a dependent (as defined in section 152)". Section 152(a) provides that "dependent" includes "a qualifying relative" (as defined in section 152(d)). A "qualifying relative" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 must satisfy four requirements in order for the 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 taxpayer to qualify for the deduction. See sec. 152(d)(1) (A)-(D). As to Ms. Stroud's parents, the Commissioner contends that Ms. Stroud failed to satisfy the third requirement--i.e., that "the taxpayer provides over one-half of the individual's support for the calendar year". Sec. 152(d)(1)(C). We sustain the Commissioner's contention. In order for a taxpayer to show that she has provided over one-half of her parents' support, she must, first, show what the total amount of that support was and, second, substantiate that she bore more than half of it. Ms. Stroud did neither. She did not 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 15 know the cost of her parents' residing at Guardian Care nor how it was paid for; and the total expenditures she was able to prove that she made on their behalf did not equal the amount of their own income. She is not entitled to claim them as dependents for the years at issue. IV. Charitable contributions A. The rules Section 170(a) allows as a deduction any charitable contribution made within the taxable year, but deductions for charitable contributions are allowable only if verified under the regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Sec. 170(a)(1). To verify a charitable contribution of property other than money, the regulations require the taxpayer to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 maintain a receipt from the donee for each 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contribution showing: (1) the name of the donee; (2) the date and location of the contribution; and (3) a description of the property. Where it is impractical to obtain a receipt, the taxpayer must maintain other reliable written records of the non-cash contributions. 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.170A-13(b)(1). The reliability of the other reliable written records is determined on the basis of all of the facts and circumstances. 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.170A-13(a)(2). 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Those are the general rules. Additional rules require even more substantiation for contributions of greater amounts: Contributions of cash or property of $250 or more must be substantiated by a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the donee. See sec. 170(f)(8); 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.170A-13(f)(1). A written acknowledgment is contemporaneous if it is obtained by the taxpayer on or before the earlier of the date the taxpayer files the original return for the taxable year of the contribution or the due date (including extensions) for filing the original return for the year. Sec. 170(f)(8)(C); 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.170A-13(f)(3). That acknowledgment, which must be furnished by the donee, 15 must (1) describe the property contributed, (2) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 indicate whether the donee organization provided any goods or services in consideration for the contribution, and (3) provide a description and good faith estimate of the value of any goods or services provided by the donee. Sec. 170(f)(8)(B); 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.170A-13(f)(2). Deductions of $500 or more for contributions of property other than money require maintenance of additional records as to the donor's prior acquisition and cost of the property donated, see 26 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 17 1 2 3 4 5 C.F.R. sec. 1.170A-13(b)(3); and requirements of appraisals apply to contributions of property in excess of $5,000, see 26 C.F.R. sec. 1.170A-13(c). However, since Ms. Stroud's non-cash contribution deductions are limited to $500 in each year, these 6 more demanding standards do not apply. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 B. Analysis 1. Cash contributions. The IRS allowed $20 of Ms. Stroud's claimed contributions in each year--i.e., the amount substantiated on her pay statements. For the remaining thousands of dollars that Ms. Stroud claimed she contributed to her church, she has no substantiation whatsoever. In 2010 and 2011 she did have and use a checking account, and she stated that some of her contributions were by check, but she presented no cancelled checks. She gave no plausible reason why she would not have written checks for most of these contributions. Moreover, her statement that the non- check contributions were by cash that she contributed in envelopes that the church had issued to her with her name on it prompts the question why, if the church had such a regime, it did not issue a receipt to her. She has not carried her burden of proof as to cash contributions. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com . (cid:16)042 Capital Reporting Company 18 2. Non-cash contributions. As is generally the case with contributions of used household goods to charitable organizations, the receipts issued to Ms. Stroud leave much to be desired. However, we take her documentation and testimony at face value and hold that she has adequately substantiated her $500 deductions for each year at issue. V. Real estate losses Taxpayers are allowed deductions for certain business and investment expenses under sections 162 and 212. However, a taxpayer must substantiate her entitlement to the deductions giving rise to such losses. A. Wilson house As to the Wilson house, Ms. Stroud reported income and claimed deductions. The only deductions she adequately substantiated were for mortgage interest, taxes, and hazard insurance. Those exceed the amount of rent she reported and thus would give rise to a loss that might reduce her other taxable income. However, section 262 precludes deductions for "personal, living, or family expenses", which would include the expense of housing one's family; and section 280A(c) limits the deductions one can 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 19 1 2 3 4 5 claim from rental property which is "a dwelling unit used by the taxpayer", which is defined in section 280A(d)(2) (A) to include use "by any member of the family ... of the taxpayer", which includes parents and sisters (see sec. 267(c)(4)). This limitation 6 will not apply where the dwelling unit is used by a 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 family member as her principal residence if it is rented to her "at a fair rental". Ms. Stroud's sister paid her less than two-thirds of the amount Ms. Stroud stated is the fair rental value of the house. It seems clear that personal, family considerations must have made up the difference. Thus, Ms. Stroud can claim as deductions for this rental no more than the amount of the rental income she reported. Sec. 280A(c)(5). However, the Commissioner acknowledges that, under section 280A(b), Ms. Stround is entitled to deduct on Schedule A, as itemized deductions, the interest deductions (see sec. 163(h)(4)(A)(i)(II)) and real property tax deductions (see sec. 164(a)(1)) to which she would have been entitled in any event. These deductions should be allowed in the parties' recomputation of her liabilities under Rule 155. B. Waldorf house The Waldorf house presents different 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 considerations. Here we sustain the IRS's disallowances not only because Ms. Stroud failed to substantiate many of the expenses and failed to prove that she was the one who paid the expenses that evidently were paid, but also because she did not own the property and therefore was not entitled to claim the related deductions. She contended at trial that 8 Maryland is a "marital property State" and that 9 therefore she is entitled to claim the Waldorf house 10 11 12 13 deductions; but we are unaware of any authority for her proposition. Rather, as the Commissioner contended--and we agree--not Ms. Stroud but her husband owned the 14 Waldorf house, was the obligor on its mortgage, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 collected its rent, was required to report the income associated with it, and was entitled to deduct the related expenses. If in fact Ms. Stroud did pay those expenses on Mr. Stroud's behalf (a proposition that the Commissioner denied and that she failed to demonstrate), then she did so either as gifts or loans to him; but she could not thereby convert them into her own deductions. For the years at issue they filed separate returns, and each must therefore report only his own items of income and deductions. That being the case, however, we hold that the 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 21 1 2 3 4 5 rental income from the Waldorf house that she reported on her Schedule E was not in fact hers. Mr. Stroud could not assign it to her by giving it to her; if he gave it to her, then it was a gift, not income. Therefore, in the Rule 155 computation, Ms. 6 Stroud's income should be adjusted downward to 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 eliminate the Waldorf house rent. (Of course, section 280A(b) has no application, and Ms. Stroud is not entitled to claim the Waldorf house interest and taxes as itemized deductions.) VI. Accuracy-related penalty Section 6662 1mposes an "accuracy-related penalty" of 20 percent of the portion of the underpayment of tax that is attributable to the taxpayer's negligence or disregard of rules or regulations or that is attributable to any substantial understatement of income tax. The precise amount of the 2010 and 2011 understatements that will result from the adjustments that we have sustained is yet to be determined pursuant to Rule 155, but it seems clear that it will be "substantial" under section 6662(d)--i.e., that it will exceed both $5,000 and 10 percent of the tax that should have been reported. We therefore need not reach the issue of negligence. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 22 Ms. Stroud cannot successfully invoke any of the defenses that a taxpayer might assert against an accuracy-related penalty: She had no "substantial authority" for her position (see sec. 6662(d)(2)(B)); she did not disclose on her return (see sec. 6662(d) (2) (B)) that she was unable to substantiate her entitlement to the disputed items; and she did not show reasonable cause and good faith for her erroneous reporting (see sec. 6664(c)(1)). This third potential defense might be available if the evidence showed, for example, that she had relied on the advice of a tax professional in taking the positions she took; but in this case she did not show, and we have no reason to suppose, that she told her return preparer that she could not substantiate her support for her parents, her charitable contributions, or her entitlement to real estate deductions. Rather, it seems that the preparer followed her lead in preparing a return that claimed these unmerited items. She is not a tax accountant, but she is better situated than most taxpayers to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 maintain books and records and to file returns that 23 24 25 can be supported by appropriate documentation--both of which she failed to do. We therefore hold that Ms. Stroud is liable for the accuracy-related penalty 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 23 for 2010 and 2011. So that the liabilities can be recalculated, decision will be entered pursuant to Rule 155. This concludes the Court' s oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 2:54 p.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com