- 24 -
locksmith shop in service on December 24, 1990. He calculated
the $3,300 amount of depreciation using the 150 percent declining
balance method, a 15-year recovery period, and half year
convention. Respondent allowed petitioner 1 month's depreciation
in the amount of $15.84 based on a determination that the
locksmith shop is nonresidential real property. Hence, in
effect, respondent argues that the straight line method, 31.5
year recovery period, and mid-month convention apply.
Section 1685 controls the computation of allowable
depreciation. Depreciation is to be computed by using the
applicable depreciation method, the applicable recovery period,
and the applicable convention. Sec. 168(a).
Petitioner offered no testimony or other evidence to support
his selection of depreciation method, recovery period, or
convention for reporting the locksmith shop depreciation. He
thus failed to carry his burden of proof to refute respondent's
depreciation adjustment. See Stafford v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-637 (where taxpayer failed to introduce any evidence
to establish that respondent's depreciation calculations based on
a shorter recovery period were incorrect, taxpayer did not
overcome the presumption of correctness of those adjustments);
Barron v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-598 (where the record
5 Sec. 168 as amended by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub.
L. 99-514, sec. 201, 100 Stat. 2085, 2121, for property placed in
service after Dec. 31, 1986, and in taxable years ending
thereafter.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011