- 12 -
that the five units were destroyed in whole or in part. We are
not persuaded by petitioner's unsupported assertions, and we find
that the five units were not destroyed in whole or in part.
Our finding that the five units were not destroyed in whole
or in part precludes nonrecognition treatment under section
1033(a). We also note, however, that petitioner has failed to
submit any evidence, other than his uncorroborated assertions at
trial, that he was compelled to enter into the group settlement
agreement with Great Bank or that petitioner acquired property
similar or related in service or use to the five units.
Petitioner's attempt to introduce evidence in his brief, filed
July 1, 1996, to support his claim under section 1033(a) is
rejected. See Rule 143(b). Thus, respondent's adjustment
increasing petitioner's gross income for the gain realized on the
sale of the five units is sustained to the extent of $103,264,
and, accordingly, respondent's adjustment increasing petitioner's
taxable income is sustained to the extent of $91,352.
B. Employee Business Expenses
Petitioner claimed on the 1989 tax return a miscellaneous
deduction in the amount of $20,388 for unreimbursed employee
business expenses. In the notice of deficiency, respondent
disallowed $19,978 of that deduction and increased petitioner's
taxable income accordingly. Respondent explained that petitioner
was not entitled to the disallowed deduction because he failed to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011