-7- Petitioner contends that he may defer recognition of gain under section 1034 because he timely bought a replacement residence. We disagree. The adjusted sale price of petitioner's old residence ($208,387) exceeded the cost of his new residence ($36,292) by $172,095. Petitioner may not defer recognition of any of the gain because the gain on the sale of his old residence ($71,001) is less than the difference between the adjusted sale price of the old residence and the cost of the new residence. Petitioner contends that he had a cost basis in the residence at 3545 Sierra Lane equal to its net sale price because he used his own labor to build it and improve the property and his labor was worth $208,387, and he contends that respondent bears the burden of proving that petitioner's assertions are incorrect. We disagree. Petitioner's basis in his labor is zero. See sec. 1012. Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent's deficiency determination is in error. See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). B. Dividend Income Gross income includes dividends. See sec. 61(a)(7). Petitioner offered no evidence to dispute respondent's determination that he received, but did not report, dividends ofPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011