- 18 - Mr. Hendricks and Mr. Angeli testified at trial that the risks associated with the substantial farming enterprise with which Mr. Hendricks was engaged at the time were what motivated the transfer of the remaining condominiums. Petitioner was not involved in the farming enterprise, and the Hendrickses wanted to protect their investment in the remaining condominiums because they constituted the Hendrickses’ only financial resource for their retirement outside of Social Security. Furthermore, despite the lack of success with the farming enterprise, Mr. Hendricks paid all of his debts from the farming enterprise. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the Hendrickses’ standard of living increased in comparison to their standard of living in prior years. Their lifestyle was not lavish, and they made no unusual expenditures. We find that petitioner did not significantly benefit from the deduction attributable to Mr. Hendricks’s investment in Boulder Oil and Gas. See Hayman v. Commissioner, supra; Jonson v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 106 (2002), affd. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003). As retirees, the Hendrickses rely on the Social Security checks they receive monthly and depend upon the rents from the remaining condominiums for income. Their current monthly living expenses exceed their income by about $1,100. They are able to meet their living expenses only through financial assistance from their children. We conclude that petitioner would experiencePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011