- 138 -
(1) that he is entitled to the capital loss that he claimed for
1992 with respect to the sale of the Church Street property and
(2) that he is not required to recognize for that year the gain
of $23,000 that respondent determined in the notice for 1991 and
1992.91
Claimed Capital Gain: Sanchez Street Property
In the notice for 1993, respondent determined that, instead
of the $11,315 gain that petitioner and Ms. Brodsky reported in
their 1993 return with respect to the sale of the Sanchez Street
property, they have a gain from that sale of $48,000, all of
which they must recognize for 1993. Respondent made that deter-
mination because petitioner and Ms. Brodsky had not established
their basis in the Sanchez Street property when it was sold.92
In the 1993 joint return, petitioner and Ms. Brodsky re-
ported that they sold their interest in the Sanchez Street
property for $48,000, that their adjusted basis in that property
at the time of that sale was $36,685, and that they realized a
gain of $11,315 on that sale.
On brief, petitioner abandons the position that he and Ms.
Brodsky took in the 1993 joint return. Instead, petitioner
advances the following contentions on brief with respect to the
91On the record before us, we further find that petitioner
has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he is enti-
tled to the capital loss carryover to 1993 that he claimed in the
1993 joint return and that respondent disallowed.
92Respondent also determined in the 1993 notice, as respon-
dent had determined in the 1991 and 1992 notice, that petitioner
and Ms. Brodsky are not entitled to the $27,000 capital loss
carryover from 1992 that they claimed in their 1993 joint return.
We sustain that determination. See supra note 91.
Page: Previous 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011