- 136 -
(2) his basis in the Church Street property is the cost of such
property, sec. 1012.
Petitioner contends that the copies of the front sides of
two checks totaling $47,600 dated May 2 and May 18, 1990, respec-
tively, which show that they were payable to Markfel Realty
(petitioner’s two checks to Markfel Realty), represented “peti-
tioner’s cost basis in the [Church Street] property.” We are not
persuaded by those copies, which the Court admitted into the
record in this case solely as the front sides of those two
checks,89 that they are the front sides of two checks that
88(...continued)
trial in this case that the Church Street property was land that
was to be developed. Petitioner also described the Church Street
property in petitioner’s answering brief as a “vacant lot”.
However, in the 1991 and 1992 joint returns filed by petitioner
and Ms. Brodsky, they reported the Church Street property as
rental property. Petitioner also took the position that the
Church Street property was rental property at the further trial
in this case and in petitioner’s opening brief. If we were to
accept petitioner’s position at the trial that the Church Street
property was land to be developed and not rental property, on the
instant record, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his
burden of showing what, if any, adjustments to basis under sec.
1016 petitioner is required to make under sec. 1011(a) in order
to determine his adjusted basis in that property. If we were to
accept petitioner’s position in Schedules E of the 1991 and 1992
joint returns and at the further trial that the Church Street
property was rental property and not land to be developed, on the
instant record, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his
burden of showing the decrease required by sec. 1016(a)(2) in his
basis in that property, determined under sec. 1012 (i.e., the
cost), for depreciation allowed or allowable, whichever is
greater, under sec. 167(a). See Reithmeyer v. Commissioner, 26
T.C. 804, 815 (1956).
89Although we are satisfied from the copy of the front side
of petitioner’s check to Markfel Realty dated May 2, 1990, that
that check was negotiated, we are not satisfied from that copy or
(continued...)
Page: Previous 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011