Zinovy Brodsky - Page 58




                                       - 143 -                                         
          for 1991 relating to the Church Street property,97 petitioner                
          contends that he has substantiated those expenses.  In support of            
          that contention, petitioner relies on a copy of the front side of            
          a check for $1,611.10 dated September 27, 1990, that was payable             
          to Markfel Realty and that petitioner signed (petitioner’s                   
          September 27, 1990 check to Markfel Realty).  We are not satis-              
          fied from that copy that that check was ever negotiated, let                 
          alone negotiated by Markfel Realty.98  Even if we were to find               
          that petitioner’s September 27, 1990 check to Markfel Realty was             
          negotiated by Markfel Realty, on the instant record, we find that            
          petitioner has failed to carry his burden of showing that that               
          check represented an amount that petitioner paid in 1991 for                 
          expenses relating to the Church Street property.  On the record              
          before us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden            
          of establishing that he is entitled to deduct for 1991 any of the            
          claimed Schedule E expenses relating to the Church Street prop-              


               97Petitioner makes no argument on brief as to $503.90 of the            
          disallowed claimed Schedule E expenses for 1991 relating to the              
          Church Street property that petitioner placed in dispute in the              
          petition and that respondent has not conceded.  We conclude that             
          petitioner has abandoned contesting $503.90 of the claimed                   
          Schedule E expenses for 1991 that respondent disallowed in the               
          notice for 1991 and 1992.  See Rybak v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. at             
          566 n.19.                                                                    
               98Assuming arguendo that we had been satisfied from the copy            
          of the front side of petitioner’s September 27, 1990 check to                
          Markfel Realty that that check was negotiated, we are not satis-             
          fied from that copy or from any other evidence in the record that            
          Markfel Realty deposited 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 peti-              
          tioner, who in turn deposited and/or cashed it.                              





Page:  Previous  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  149  150  151  152  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011