William W. Halle IV, and Janice C. Halle - Page 23

                                       - 23 -                                         
          Cavalier's fair market value.  Respondent relied on the National            
          Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) used car guide for the fair           
          market value.                                                               
               The basis of property which has not been used in the trade             
          or business and which is thereafter converted to such use is the            
          lesser of fair market value on the date of conversion or the                
          adjusted basis on the date of conversion.  Sec. 1.167(g)-1,                 
          Income Tax Regs.  Because petitioner converted the Cavalier to              
          business use, the appropriate basis for depreciation is fair                
          market value.  Petitioner provided no evidence as to the                    
          Cavalier's fair market value on June 1, 1990, the date of                   
          conversion.  Consequently, respondent's valuation is sustained.             
          See Lillis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-142, affd. without              
          published opinion 740 F.2d 974 (9th Cir. 1984) (taxpayers failed            
          to carry their burden of proof as to amount claimed for                     
          depreciation where no evidence was introduced to establish basis            
          or other component of their depreciation formula); see also Boggs           
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-224 (the Commissioner's estimate           
          of salvage value based on the NADA guide was sustained where the            
          taxpayer failed to introduce evidence to refute it).                        
                    (3)  Wyoming Locksmith Shop                                       
               Petitioner claimed depreciation of $3,300 for the Wyoming              
          locksmith shop.  Respondent does not challenge petitioner's                 
          entitlement to depreciation.  Rather, the parties disagree as to            
          the amount of depreciation to be allowed.  Petitioner placed the            




Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011