Haralampos Katerelos and Irene Katerelos - Page 56

                                                 - 56 -                                                   

            in a trade or business.  Section 167(c)(1) provides that the                                  
            basis on which the exhaustion, wear and tear is allowed is the                                
            adjusted basis determined under section 1011.  Thus, to be                                    
            entitled to a depreciation deduction, petitioners must establish                              
            their adjusted bases in the properties with respect to which they                             
            are claiming depreciation deductions for the years at issue.                                  
                  Prior to the trial herein, the parties stipulated that                                  
            petitioners are entitled to depreciation deductions for the years                             
            at issue that are based on adjusted bases of a minimum of $22,102                             
            with respect to properties placed in service during 1986.  Peti-                              
            tioners argue that their bases in the properties placed in serv-                              
            ice during 1986 was greater than the amount of $22,102 to which                               
            the parties stipulated.43  The only evidence in the record re-                                
            garding petitioners' claim is the testimony of Mr. Katerelos on                               
            which we are unwilling to rely.44                                                             
                  Although petitioners admitted that they do not have re-                                 
            ceipts to support their claim that they had bases in properties                               


            43  It is unclear whether petitioners are arguing that they                                   
            placed properties into service during 1986 in addition to those                               
            properties that the parties stipulated had minimum bases of                                   
            $22,102 or that their bases in the latter properties exceeded                                 
            $22,102.                                                                                      
            44  Petitioners attempted to call Mr. Fisher to testify as an                                 
            expert witness on their behalf for purposes of valuing the                                    
            properties used at NDV.  As required by Rule 143(f), petitioners                              
            submitted a purported expert report prepared by Mr. Fisher before                             
            trial.  Respondent filed a motion to exclude that report and any                              
            expert testimony by Mr. Fisher.  The Court granted respondent's                               
            motion and did not admit the purported expert report of Mr.                                   
            Fisher into evidence and did not allow him to testify as an                                   
            expert witness.                                                                               


Page:  Previous  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011