14
petitioner regarding all of the expenses in dispute was for the
most part general, vague, conclusory, uncorroborated, and
questionable. Under these circumstances, we are not required to,
and we do not, accept such testimony to support the positions of
petitioners herein. Lerch v. Commissioner, 877 F.2d 624, 631-632
(7th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Geiger v.
Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per
curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159. The determination of respondent is
sustained as to rental expenses claimed in 1989 and 1990.
Issue 7. Capital Gain
Petitioners sold the California property on February 1,
1989, for $110,000. With their original 1989 Federal income tax
return, petitioners filed a Form 2119 with the following
information:
Selling price of home $110,000.00
Expense of sale 9,514.04
Amount realized 100,485.96
Basis of home sold 107,037.40
Gain on sale (6,551.44)
In response to the query "If you haven't replaced your home, do
you plan to do so within the replacement period?" petitioners
answered in the affirmative.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that
petitioners miscalculated the gain on the sale of the California
property. Respondent's computation is as follows:
Selling price of home $110,000
Expense of sale 9,514
Amount realized $100,486
Page: 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