- 141 -
and basis in the Sanchez Street property, petitioner relies on
the testimony of Mr. Dubrovsky, on which we are not required to,
and we shall not, rely. In support of petitioner’s alternative
position regarding the sale of the Sanchez Street property,
petitioner relies on the testimony of Mr. Sutton. Based on the
Court’s evaluation of Mr. Sutton’s testimony, we are not required
to, and we shall not, rely on his testimony regarding the sale of
the Sanchez Street property.
On the instant record, we find that petitioner has failed to
carry his burden of establishing his basis in the Sanchez Street
property within the meaning of section 1012 and his adjusted
basis in that property within the meaning of section 1011(a).94
We further find on that record that petitioner has failed to
carry his burden of establishing that he did not sell his inter-
est in that property in 1993 for $48,000.95 On the record before
us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of
establishing that he is not required to recognize for 1993 the
gain of $48,000 that respondent determined in the 1993 notice.
Claimed Schedule E Deductions
94Because petitioner does not dispute that the Sanchez
Street property was rental property, 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. at 815.
95On the instant record, we find that petitioner has failed
to carry his burden of showing in the alternative that the
Sanchez Street property was sold in 1995.
Page: Previous 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011