- 13 -
Based on the state of the record in this case, we do not
place any particular weight on the real estate log in resolving
whether petitioner used the motor home in connection with his
rental real estate activities. Even assuming arguendo that we
were willing to place any weight on that log, we do not believe
that it establishes that the trips taken by petitioner in the
motor home during 1989 were primarily for business, rather than
personal, purposes, nor does it establish any other business use
of the motor home during that year.7
Based on our review of the entire record in this case, we
find that petitioner has failed to establish that the motor home
was used in carrying on his rental real estate activities within
the meaning of section 162(a) or that it was used in or for those
activities within the meaning of section 167(a).8 Consequently,
we find that petitioner has failed to establish that he is en-
titled for 1989 to the deductions he claimed under sections
162(a) and 167(a) with respect to the motor home.
Even assuming arguendo that the motor home expenses at issue
were allowable deductions under sections 162(a) and 167(a), those
7 Although petitioner also testified about the real properties
that he allegedly visited during the trips in 1989 that he and
Ms. Perry took in the motor home, his testimony with respect to
that matter was general, vague, and/or conclusory. As stated
above, we are unwilling to rely on petitioner's testimony to
sustain his burden of proof in this case.
8 In fact, petitioner has failed to establish that during the
year at issue his rental real estate activities were sufficiently
systematic and continuous so as to constitute a trade or busi-
ness. See Curphey v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. at 775.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011