- 139 -
Sanchez Street property:93
Joseph Dubrovsky testified that petitioner in-
vested $57,000 in 1987, in property located on El
Camino del Mar, San Francisco. * * *
Mr. Dubrovsky testified that he returned $30,000
of petitioner’s investment to him on June 3, 1988.[1]
Therefore, petitioner’s adjusted basis was $27,000 at
that point in time. Thereafter, it is unclear whether
there was a sale or like-kind exchange for the property
located at 287 Sanchez Street. What is clear is Joseph
Dubrovsky testified that all the owners of El Camino
del Mar remained the owners of 287 Sanchez Street,
including petitioner. Edward Sutton, the tax return
preparer, testified that his records reflected a pur-
chase price of $400,000 for 287 Sanchez Street in 1989,
which would be the cost basis. Joseph Dubrovsky testi-
fied that petitioner was a 10% owner of the property.
Edward Sutton, the tax return preparer, reported
that petitioner’s gain on a sale of the property in
93Petitioner contends in the alternative that, because there
are no documents establishing that petitioner was in fact a legal
owner of the Sanchez Street property at the time of its sale in
1993, “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 contention that he was
not a legal owner of the Sanchez Street property. We have found
on that record that, at least during the period beginning in 1991
and ending on the date of the sale of the Sanchez Street property
in 1993, petitioner and Ms. Brodsky 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, 1992, and
1993 joint returns filed by petitioner and Ms. Brodsky support
that finding. Petitioner and Ms. Brodsky included Schedule E in
each of those returns. In each such Schedule E, they reported
the Sanchez Street property as rental property, and they claimed
rental expenses with respect to that property. In Schedule D and
Form 4797 that petitioner and Ms. Brodsky included in the 1993
joint return, they claimed a capital gain with respect to the
Sanchez Street property. We find that the 1991, 1992, and 1993
joint returns contain admissions by petitioner and Ms. Brodsky
that they had an ownership interest in the Sanchez Street prop-
erty at least during the period beginning in 1991 and ending on
the date of the sale of that property in 1993. Those admissions
may not be overcome without cogent evidence that they are wrong.
See FRE 801(d)(2); Waring v. Commissioner, 412 F.2d at 801;
Estate of Hall v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. at 337-338.
Page: Previous 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011