Evert E. and Eva F. Berglund - Page 12

                                                - 12 -                                                  
                  As a result of these defaults, approximately 652 acres of                             
            the Illinois farmland were sold in 1986 for the sum of                                      
            $721,599.97.  The proceeds of the sale were divided as follows:                             
            $669,176.55 to FNB, $13,149.91 for closing costs, and the balance                           
            of $39,273.51 to FHA.  FNB and FHA applied $147,624.52 of the                               
            sale proceeds to accrued unpaid interest expense on petitioner's                            
            loans, and the balance of $560,825.54 was applied to the                                    
            principal loan amounts.  None of the interest applications was                              
            reported as a business deduction on petitioner and his spouse's                             
            joint Federal income tax return for 1986.                                                   
                  Petitioner's basis in the 1,120 acres of Illinois farmland                            
            is $342,000.  Accordingly, his basis in the 652 acres sold is                               
            $199,101.  Sec. 1.61-6(a), Income Tax Regs.  (when part of a                                
            larger property is sold, the cost or other basis of the entire                              
            property is equitably apportioned among the several parts, and                              
            the gain realized on the part of the entire property sold is the                            
            difference between the selling price and the cost or other basis                            
            allocated to such part).                                                                    
                  As we previously stated, because we hold that petitioner has                          
            not presented any evidence to establish that respondent's                                   
            determination, as modified by concessions, is incorrect, we need                            
            not address respondent's alternative contention that petitioner                             
            is collaterally estopped from relitigating that the sale had in                             








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011