Zinovy Brodsky - Page 59




                                       - 144 -                                         
          erty.99                                                                      
               With respect to the claimed Schedule E expenses for 1991 and            
          1992 relating to the Sanchez Street property, petitioner contends            
          that respondent conceded prior to the further trial that peti-               
          tioner had substantiated the total amounts of expenses with                  
          respect to that property that were paid during those respective              
          years.  Petitioner claims that respondent’s counsel made that                
          concession during a meeting held less than a week before the                 
          further trial in this case (meeting in question), which peti-                
          tioner’s counsel Martin A. Schainbaum, Mr. Sutton, respondent’s              
          counsel, and Mr. Oliveras attended.  At the meeting in question,             
          respondent’s counsel and Mr. Oliveras reviewed certain documents             
          (petitioner’s documents) that petitioner’s representatives                   
          brought to that meeting, which petitioner contends substantiate              
          the total amounts of expenses relating to the Sanchez Street                 
          property that were paid during 1991 and 1992, respectively.                  
               During the testimony of Mr. Sutton at the further trial in              
          this case, petitioner attempted to introduce into the record                 

               99Because we have found 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 property, petitioner does not have a loss for that year               
          relating to that property.  Assuming arguendo that we had found              
          that petitioner did have a loss for 1991 relating to the Church              
          Street property, we find on the record before us that petitioner             
          has failed to carry his burden of establishing the amount with               
          respect to which he was at risk under sec. 465 for that property             
          for that year.  See sec. 465(a) and (b).  We further find on that            
          record that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of estab-              
          lishing that any loss relating to the Church Street property for             
          1991 did not constitute a passive activity loss under sec. 469               
          for that year.  See sec. 469(a), (c).                                        





Page:  Previous  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  149  150  151  152  153  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011