Joseph J. James - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          share of such expenses.3  Estate of Boyd v. Commissioner, supra;            
          see In re Sivak's Estate, 359 Pa. 194, 58 A.2d 456 (1948).                  
               The expenses at issue in Boyd involved only repairs; here,             
          we must also deal with the deductibility of interest and taxes.             
          We addressed the deductibility of a cotenant's nonproportionate             
          payment of interest and taxes in the case of Cothran v.                     
          Commissioner, 57 T.C. 296 (1971).  In Cothran, we held that a               
          cotenant who paid 100 percent of the interest and taxes arising             
          from property held in cotenancy was allowed to claim only 50                
          percent of such payment as deductible interest and taxes.  Id. at           
          301; see also Rev. Rul. 62-39, 1962-1 C.B. 17.4                             
               Based on the foregoing, we hold that petitioner is entitled            
          to deduct only his proportionate share of the expenses arising              

               We note that, in fact, petitioner did receive significant              
          contribution from his cotenants, since he received their share of           
          the rental income.                                                          
               Compare Conroy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1958-6 and Powell           
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1967-32, where we held that a                   
          cotenant may deduct more than his proportionate share of interest           
          and taxes arising from property held in cotenancy, where the                
          cotenant paid such expenses to avoid personal liability or to               
          preserve his interest in cotenancy property.  Petitioner had no             
          legal obligation to pay more than his share of the taxes under              
          Pennsylvania law, and Pennsylvania law would not divest                     
          petitioner of his cotenancy interest for his cotenants' failure             
          to pay their proportionate share of the taxes.  72 Pa. Cons.                
          Stat. Ann. secs. 5968 and 5969 (1995).  Moreover, Pennsylvania              
          law provides that a cotenant who pays more than his proportionate           
          share of mortgage interest is entitled to reimbursement for the             
          payments in excess of his proportionate share.  Weiskircher v.              
          Connelly, 248 Pa. 327, 93 A. 1068 (1915).  In fact, petitioner              
          did receive contribution from his cotenants, see supra note 3.              
          Accordingly, the cases of Conroy and Powell are distinguishable.            

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011