Timothy L. and Jane Williams - Page 12

                                        - 12 -                                         

               The parties dispute the cumulative amount of petitioner’s               
          contributions and loans to WIS through the end of the taxable                
          year 1991.  In computing petitioner’s basis in WIS for 1991,                 
          respondent gave petitioner credit for contributions and loans                
          during 1990 in the total amount of $77,500.  Petitioners bear the            
          burden of proving that petitioner’s investment in WIS exceeded               
          the amount determined by respondent.  Rule 142(a).                           
               The evidence indicates that in 1990, in addition to the                 
          amounts allowed by respondent, petitioner contributed to WIS the             
          proceeds realized from the sale of personally owned vehicles to              
          PR&L.  Of the five vehicles sold, one, the Ford Aerostar, was                
          owned in part by WIS.  The record does not disclose the                      
          respective ownership shares of WIS and petitioner in this                    
          vehicle.  We estimate petitioner’s share as one-half;                        
          accordingly, petitioner is entitled to have one-half of the                  
          proceeds from the sale of this vehicle applied to his basis in               
          WIS.  See Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930); Rudd            
          v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 225, 236-238 (1982).                                
               At trial, respondent’s counsel asserted that since the                  
          income tax returns of WIS showed that the corporation had claimed            
          depreciation with respect to three of the five vehicles prior to             
          the sale, it was respondent’s position that WIS was the owner of             
          these three vehicles for tax purposes, regardless of who held                
          title.  However, WIS’s tax returns were not introduced in                    
          evidence, and petitioner’s testimony contradicted counsel’s                  



Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011