Richard Walter Drake - Page 7

                                          7                                           
          Respondent concedes that petitioner actively participated in his            
          rental activity in the year in issue.  Respondent, however,                 
          argues that petitioner has not substantiated expenses in excess             
          of those allowed in the notice of deficiency.3                              
               Petitioner presented numerous receipts and his own testimony           
          to substantiate his expenses.  Based upon the record, we find               
          that petitioner has substantiated cleaning, maintenance, and                
          repair expenses totaling $3,727 related to the sewer line break             
          and other power washing.  We have reviewed petitioner's remaining           
          receipts for purchases of items for repairs.  The majority of the           
          purchases were made at home improvement or hardware stores and              
          are for amounts under $100 each.  It is not readily apparent what           
          every receipt is for--some do not contain a description of the              
          items purchased.  However, most of the receipts contain a                   
          description of the items purchased including paint, drop cloths,            
          boards, caulking materials, and other related materials.                    
          Petitioner's own testimony concerning the purchases did little to           
          explain the purpose of the purchases as it was extremely general.           
          The receipts reflect purchases totaling approximately $2,400,               
          excluding the repairs related to the sewer line break.  Based on            
          the record, we find that petitioner paid additional repair                  
          expenses in the amount of $1,800.                                           

          3   Respondent's brief, due on or before May 27, 1997, was                  
          postmarked May 25, 1997, and was filed by the Court on May 28,              
          1997.  Petitioner requests that we strike respondent's brief as             
          untimely.  We deny petitioner's request.                                    




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011