- 19 -
As for Form 4684, it was petitioners who took the position
in that form which they filed with the 1994 joint return that Mr.
Mitic’s Mercedes was property used in a trade or business or for
income-producing purposes.8 Consequently, it was they who de-
cided to report the casualty loss with respect to that automobile
in section B, Business and Income-Producing Property, of Form
4684. Furthermore, in completing part I, Casualty or Theft Gain
or Loss, in section B of Form 4684, it was petitioners who
decided to report as the “Cost or adjusted basis” of Mr. Mitic’s
Mercedes the original purchase price ($67,500) of that automo-
bile. They took that position even though they had depreciated
Mr. Mitic’s Mercedes in prior years, and consequently the ad-
justed basis of that automobile, as depreciated by petitioners,
would have been less than its original cost. It was also peti-
7(...continued)
ing the amount of insurance ($43,282.10) actually paid to them by
State Farm in early February 1995 with respect to Mr. Mitic’s
Mercedes from the amount ($67,500) that petitioners paid to
purchase that vehicle. We have no jurisdiction over petitioners’
taxable year 1995. Both the notice issued by respondent and the
petition filed by petitioners relate only to petitioners’ taxable
years 1993 and 1994.
8Except for Mr. Mitic’s general and conclusory testimony on
which we are unwilling to rely, the record contains no evidence
establishing that in 1994 Mr. Mitic’s Mercedes was property used
in a trade or business or in a transaction entered into for
profit. Nor does the record establish that the loss, if any,
sustained with respect to that vehicle was incurred in a trade or
business or in a transaction entered into for profit. To the
contrary, Mr. Mitic stipulated that petitioners were traveling to
Lake Tahoe on vacation at the time petitioners’ automobile
accident occurred.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011