- 16 -
prepare and maintain the property for such use. The Florida
condominium was not used personally by petitioner and his wife.9
They continuously advertised the property for sale or rent during
1991, and the reason that no income was produced by the property
during year in question was a lack of fruitful response to
petitioners' newspaper advertisements. The record reflects that
the condominium was suitable for occupancy and available for sale
or rent during the year at issue. The fact that the property
realized no income during the year at issue is not determinative.
Having found that petitioners held the Florida condominium
for the production of income within the meaning of section 212,
it follows that their expenses for the management, conservation,
or maintenance of property, such as taxes, utilities, maintenance
fees, advertising, legal fees, and repairs are allowable for
1991.10 Respondent contends that expenses attributable to the
Florida condo activity were deducted by petitioners, and allowed,
on Schedule E of their 1991 return. Therefore, respondent
contends, the expenses were not properly deductible on Schedule
9
Although petitioner and Mrs. Thomason stayed at the Florida
condominium on one of their two visits during 1991, the Court
does not view this as a personal use because the sole
purpose of their visit was to meet with a prospective purchaser
or lessee and to make minor repairs.
10
There is no evidence in the record that petitioner and his
wife claimed a deduction for depreciation on the Florida
condominium in 1991.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011