- 134 -
Claimed Capital Loss: Church Street Property
In the notice for 1991 and 1992, respondent determined that,
instead of the $27,000 loss which petitioner and Ms. Brodsky
reported in their 1992 joint return with respect to the sale of
the Church Street property, they have a gain of $23,000, all of
which they must recognize for 1992.85 Respondent made those
determinations because petitioner had not established his basis
in the Church Street property at the time of its sale in 1992.
Petitioner contends on brief that in 1992 he sold a 25-
percent interest in the Church Street property for $23,000, that
his basis in that property at the time of that sale was
$47,600,86 and that he realized a capital loss of $24,600 on that
sale.87
85Respondent also disallowed in the 1991 and 1992 notice a
claimed capital loss carryover to 1993 that was attributable to
the $27,000 loss that petitioner and Ms. Brodsky claimed for
1992.
86In the 1992 Schedule D, petitioner and Ms. Brodsky claimed
a $50,000 basis in the Church Street property as of the date of
the sale of that property.
87Petitioner contends in the alternative that, because there
are no documents establishing that petitioner was in fact a legal
owner of the Church Street property at the time of its sale in
1992, “petitioner is not obligated or required to report any
capital gain or loss on the sale of” that property. On the
record before us, we reject petitioner’s alternative contention
that he was not a legal owner of the Church Street property. We
have found on that record that, at least during part of 1991 and
1992 until the date of the sale of the Church Street property,
petitioner owned an interest in that property, although the
extent of that interest is not disclosed by credible evidence in
the record. In this connection, in addition to other evidence in
the record, the 1991 and 1992 joint returns filed by petitioner
(continued...)
Page: Previous 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011