Donald D. Bowers and Deborah Bowers - Page 29

                                               - 29 -                                                  
            occupied that house on December 15, 1989.  Florence continued to                           
            live in the Burlington house until mid-July of 1989, and any time                          
            that petitioners spent in the Burlington house occurred between                            
            mid-July and late August or early September of 1989.  The record                           
            as a whole convinces the Court that any occupancy of the                                   
            Burlington house by petitioners was at most just a few days on a                           
            sporadic and intermittent basis.  See supra note 20.                                       
                  Petitioners testified in an attempt to rebut such evidence                           
            and to try to establish their use of the Burlington house.                                 
            Petitioners presented no witnesses or documentary evidence to                              
            corroborate their self-serving testimony.  They alleged the                                
            Mandarin house was purchased and used for business purposes.  We                           
            found their testimony to be vague, inconsistent, and generally                             
            not credible.  We are not required to accept such testimony.                               
            Potito v. Commissioner, 534 F.2d 49, 51 (5th Cir. 1976), affg.                             
            T.C. Memo. 1975-187; Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77                              
            (1986).  See supra note 20.                                                                
                  Based on all the facts and circumstances, we find that the                           
            Burlington house was not used by either petitioner as a principal                          
            residence after October of 1987.24  Therefore, section 1034 does                           
            not apply to the sale of the Burlington house, and petitioners                             
            must recognize the gain from that sale in 1989.                                            

            24 Since we reach this conclusion, we need not address                                     
            respondent's argument that only Deborah's principal residence is                           
            at issue because Mr. Bowers had no legal or equitable title to                             
            the Burlington property while the Trust had record title.                                  

Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011