- 12 - We do not have sufficient information to estimate how much petitioners paid for the storage addition that was completed in 1982. Also, petitioners have failed to show that they did not include the cost of the storage addition on the depreciation schedule attached to their 1982 return, for which respondent already concedes an allowance for depreciation. Finally, petitioners have not shown that they did not fully depreciate the cost of the storage addition before 1985. Thus, petitioners may not increase their basis in the Hoefgen Avenue property for 1985 or any later year to include any costs of building the storage addition. B. Whether Petitioners Have Basis in the Hoefgen Avenue Property for Outdoor Advertising Signs Petitioners contend that the two outdoor advertising signs on the Hoefgen Avenue property had a future contract value of $130,000 and that we should increase their basis in the Hoefgen Avenue property by that amount. We disagree. The basis of property is generally its cost. See sec. 1012; Better Beverages, Inc. v. United States, 619 F.2d 424, 428 (5th Cir. 1980); Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. United States, 444 F.2d 677, 683-684 (5th Cir. 1971). Future contract value is not the cost of the two outdoor signs.4 There is no evidence of the 4 Future contract value is not a proper grounds for computing gain. See sec. 1012; Better Beverages, Inc. v. United States, 619 F.2d 424, 428 (5th Cir. 1980); Winn-Dixie Montgomery, (continued...)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