Eli T. Sleiman, Jr. and Janie L. Sleiman, et al. - Page 17

                                       - 17 -                                         
                    In the case of the acquisition on or after March                  
               1, 1913, of a combination of depreciable and                           
               nondepreciable property for a lump sum, as for example,                
               buildings and land, the basis for depreciation cannot                  
               exceed an amount which bears the same proportion to the                
               lump sum as the value of the depreciable property at                   
               the time of acquisition bears to the value of the                      
               entire property at that time. * * *                                    
               Thus, the relevant inquiry is the respective fair market               
          values of the depreciable and nondepreciable property at the time           
          of acquisition.  Weis v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 473, 482-483                 
          (1990); Randolph Building Corp. v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 804, 807           
          (1977).  Petitioners bear the burden of proving that respondent's           
          allocation is incorrect.  Rule 142(a); see Elliott v.                       
          Commissioner, 40 T.C. 304, 313 (1963).                                      
               Petitioners rely on the allocation agreed to by ME and                 
          Country, Inc., the seller of the shopping center.  They argue               
          that the allocation in the purchase and sale agreement is                   
          determinative of the property's fair market value at the time of            
          acquisition because the transaction was conducted at arm's                  
          length.  Respondent cites the value of the land as estimated in             
          an independent appraisal report and as determined by the Duval              
          County property tax appraiser's office in arguing that ME's                 
          allocation is improper.                                                     
               Petitioners have introduced no evidence, other than the                
          purchase and sale agreement, that supports the allocation claimed           
          on ME's return.  In contrast, two separate appraisals, discussed            
          infra, convince us that the value of the land constitutes a                 





Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011