Leonard L. Leighton and Joyce S. Leighton - Page 9

                                          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