Court Opinion

ID: 9456489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:54:36.532575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:59.954766
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
PELL, Circuit Judge.
Having considered the petition for rehearing filed herein by appellant Lark Sales Company and the answer thereto of appellee Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the petition is denied.
Lark first requests that the remand of this cause to the Tax Court be enlarged to include consideration of certain adjustments apart from those already included. Lark’s original brief in this large and complex case devoted seven lines to these adjustments. Lark even now does little more than suggest to us questions raised by certain testimony and exhibits without otherwise showing support for its position. Our examination of the testimony and exhibits submitted to the Tax Court indicates that they do not cover all of the adjustments claimed. To the extent that they do, the adjustments were allowed by the Commissioner. The Tax Court determined that the record did not support further adjustments and we must agree. If Lark was entitled to some or all of the claimed adjustments, it had the burden to show it. It has failed to meet that burden by its sketchy presentation here and in the Tax Court.
Lark is correct in saying, in support of its second ground for rehearing, that its gross income should not be increased by more than the total collections of 20 East and the Medd Level found to be its property. However, it is incorrect in asserting that the opinion of this court requires more than that by denying the deduction of the Murehie fees attributable to the 20 East and Medd Level income. All that we require *1080is that Lark’s gross income include the full amount of the 2$ East and Medd Level incomes. To the extent that its filed returns already reflect a portion of such income in gross income as “Sales —Expense Allocations,” no further increase is necessary under the opinion of this court. However, once the proper figure for gross income, including the 2<¡: East and Medd Level collections, is computed, no deduction from that figure is to be taken for the Murchie fee item, whether that item is attributable to the collections of 2$ East, Medd Level or other income. The Tax Court will in any event upon remand have to recompute Lark’s taxable income for the years in question and should do so in the light of the foregoing explanation of that part of our original opinion pertaining to accountant’s fees as income.
Lark’s final ground for rehearing simply challenges this court’s assessment of the record support for certain findings of fact. We are not persuaded that such assessment merits reconsideration.
Petition for rehearing denied.