Joseph J. James - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          all of the deductions.  For the reasons set out below, we agree             
          with respondent.                                                            
               In Estate of Boyd v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. 564 (1957), the             
          issue presented was whether the taxpayer could deduct 100 percent           
          of the repair expenses arising from property that he owned as a             
          cotenant with a trust, when he paid 100 percent of such expenses.           
          We found that it was a fundamental rule of New Jersey State                 
          property law that "co-owners share necessary expenses of the                
          repair of the common property in proportion to their ownership.             
          A tenant in common, who makes necessary repairs on the common               
          property, is entitled to reimbursement from other co-tenants."              
          Id. at 565-566 (citations omitted).  Accordingly, we found that,            
          under Federal tax law, "one-half of the repair bill is not the              
          'ordinary and necessary expenses' of the co-tenant who paid the             
          entire bill."  Id.  Thus, we held that "Each cotenant owned                 
          separate property interests in the common property that produced            
          separate income to each, and the separate expenses that are                 
          deductible by each is the portion of the entire expenses which              
          each separate interest bears to the whole, and no more."  Id. at            
          566; see also Conte v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-571.                   
               Since petitioner's cotenants could be required to reimburse            
          him for his payment of a nonproportionate share of the repair               
          expenses arising from the properties held in cotenancy,                     
          petitioner is not entitled to deduct more than his proportionate            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011