Maurice E. Hodgkins and Barbara J. Hodgkins - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         


          ownership.  On September 2, 1988, a few weeks after petitioners             
          recorded their deed, they sold the house to Inderjit and Bharati            
          Dutt.                                                                       
               The gain that petitioners showed on their return and the               
          gain that respondent determined are as follows:                             
                              Per Return     Per Exam            Adjustment           
          Sales price         $127,500       $127,500            $-0-                 
          Purchase price,     (119,560)      (114,905)           4,655                
          improvements, and                                                           
          expenses of resale                                                          
          Gain           7,940               12,595              4,655                


               The parties' post-determination maneuvering adds complexity            
          to their disagreement.  They stipulate or claim that some of what           
          was capitalized should now be deducted and some of what was                 
          deducted should now be capitalized.  First, the parties                     
          stipulated that $1,837 previously capitalized should be deducted            
          as an investment interest expense.  Second, petitioners assert              
          that $9,851 previously deducted as a rental loss should now be              
          capitalized.  In 1988 petitioners deducted a $9,851 rental loss,            
          which respondent disallowed on the grounds that the property was            
          unproductive, and for lack of substantiation.  Petitioners now              
          concede that they did not use the property to produce income and            
          that therefore they should not have taken the rental loss in                
          1988.  They now insist, however, that the expenditures entitle              
          them to adjust their basis upwards.                                         





Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011