- 12 -
and remanding in part T.C. Memo. 1956-178. With these principles
in mind, we find that petitioner's estimates of the value of the
work performed by Murray are reasonable, except for two amounts.
Petitioner estimated that the cost of repairing and painting
the fence was $1,000. We find this amount excessive.
Petitioners submitted a written market analysis (the report) of
the fair market value of her property which was prepared by a
Century 21 real estate agent (the agent). Petitioner testified
that the agent who performed this analysis came to the property
and inspected both the exterior and the interior of the house.
Furthermore, petitioner testified that she agreed with the
evaluation of her property as presented in the report. The
report has a section titled "Condition Report" which provides a
check list of exterior items that have been inspected, and a
space for the agent to comment on any repairs that may be needed.
The agent indicated that he had inspected the fence (among other
items), and in the comment space he wrote, "TWO BROKEN BOARDS IN
REAR YARD". We find that this evidence does not support
petitioner's estimation of the value of repairing and repainting
the fence. Accordingly, we allow $300 for this repair.
Petitioner estimated that the cost to paint the interior of
the house was $1,000. We accept this estimate; however,
petitioner testified that Murray helped her do the painting.
Therefore, we accept only $500 as the value of Murray's services.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011