- 11 -
their circumstances to be analogous to those of the taxpayer in
Estate of Kincaid v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-543. There,
we found that the origin and character of the claim for which
legal fees were incurred had as its source "the management and
conservation of income-producing property in which [taxpayer]
held an interest as an income beneficiary." Here, for purposes
of argument, we shall assume that some portion of petitioners'
legal fees relates to the management of income producing
property.
When a petitioner proves that some part of an expenditure
was made for deductible purposes, and when the record contains
sufficient evidence for us to make a reasonable allocation, we
will do so. Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930);
Luman v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 846 (1982). Even if we were to
agree that petitioner had a sufficient interest in the Chicago
property to support a deduction, and that a portion of the legal
fees she expended during the years 1990 through 1992, was for the
production or collection of income, or for the management of
property held for the production or collection of income,
petitioners have failed to show (and we are unable to discern)
any supportable basis for making a reasonable allocation of fees
to the "management" of the Chicago property.
We do not know the hourly rate, if any, charged, or the
total attorney time spent on the two lawsuits or on the
particular issue involving the Chicago property. Based on the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011