- 137 -
Markfel Realty negotiated.90 On the instant record, we find that
petitioner has failed to carry his burden of establishing his
basis in the Church Street property within the meaning of section
1012 and his adjusted basis in that property within the meaning
of section 1011(a). On the record before us, we find that
petitioner has failed to carry his burden of establishing
89(...continued)
from any other evidence in the record that Markfel Realty depos-
ited and/or cashed that check, nor do we know from the record the
date on which that check was negotiated. For example, Markfel
Realty could have endorsed that check to petitioner, who in turn
deposited and/or cashed it. We are not satisfied from the copy
of the front side of petitioner’s check to Markfel Realty dated
May 18, 1990, or from any other evidence in the record that that
check was ever negotiated.
90Assuming arguendo that we had been persuaded that peti-
tioner’s two checks to Markfel Realty were negotiated by Markfel
Realty, on the instant record, we find that petitioner has failed
to carry his burden of showing that those checks represented
funds paid by petitioner with respect to the Church Street
property. We have found that during the course of petitioner’s
dealings with Markfel Realty petitioner invested in several real
properties and that any checks which petitioner wrote to Markfel
Realty were for one or more of the following purposes: Initial
respective investments in certain real properties, respective
increases in his investment interests in certain real properties,
and/or respective payments of his proportionate share of any
expenditures with respect to such interests. Assuming arguendo
that we had found that the copies of the front sides of peti-
tioner’s two checks to Markfel Realty were negotiated by Markfel
Realty, petitioner could have paid the proceeds of those checks
to Markfel Realty with respect to real properties other than the
Church Street property. Even if we had been satisfied from the
instant record that the copies of the front sides of petitioner’s
two checks to Markfel Realty were negotiated by Markfel Realty
and that the proceeds of those checks were paid to Markfel Realty
with respect to the Church Street property, petitioner could have
paid those proceeds in order to invest in, to increase his
investment in, and/or to pay his proportionate share of any
expenditures with respect to that property.
Page: Previous 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011