9
him (in some amount) have yet been paid, and petitioner admitted
as much on the witness stand. Likewise, there is no proof that
any of the alleged joint ventures formally abandoned their
interests in the properties concerned in 1987, nor what
petitioner's interest in any such joint venture was.1
Although section 165(a) provides that there shall be allowed
as a deduction any loss sustained during the taxable year (and
not compensated by insurance or otherwise), the basis for
determining such loss must be the adjusted basis under section
1011. The amount of loss allowable shall not exceed the
taxpayer's adjusted basis in the asset, sec. 1.165-1(c), Income
Tax Regs. Petitioners have the burden of proving the amount of
their basis, Millsap v. Commissioner, 46 T.C. 751, 760 (1966),
affd. 387 F.2d 420 (8th Cir. 1968), and the loss cannot be
computed where the taxpayer (petitioners here) failed to prove
their basis in the property in question. Both petitioner's
arguments suffer from the same defect: there is no admissible
evidence showing that petitioner had any cost basis in any joint
venture which allegedly was abandoned in 1987, and there is no
1 The record herein contains a mass of petitioner's
exhibits, some of which purport to show losses and recorded
judgments with respect to some of petitioner's joint ventures.
These exhibits were admitted into evidence solely for showing the
mass of documents that petitioner had furnished to respondent in
the preparation of this case; they were not stipulated as true or
admissible as to their contents by respondent. This limitation
on admissibility was clearly stated in the trial stipulation
executed by the parties. See Rules 91, 143.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011