- 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