Zinovy Brodsky - Page 62




                                       - 147 -                                         
          documents into evidence, we find that those documents do not show            
          that respondent conceded at the meeting in question that peti-               
          tioner substantiated the total amounts of expenses relating to               
          the Sanchez Street property that were paid during 1991 and 1992,             
          respectively.  We further find that petitioner’s documents do not            
          establish such amounts, and consequently we reject petitioner’s              
          position on brief that those documents substantiate the total                
          amount of expenses relating to the Sanchez Street property that              
          were paid during 1991 and 1992, respectively.  Although peti-                
          tioner’s documents establish that certain amounts were paid                  
          during 1991 and 1992, respectively, and although it appears that             
          some of those amounts were paid with respect to the Sanchez                  
          Street property, we find that petitioner’s documents do not                  
          establish (1) that any of the amounts reflected in those docu-               
          ments were paid by petitioner103 and (2) that all of those amounts           
          constitute deductible expenses, as opposed to expenditures (e.g.,            
          capital improvements) that must be capitalized.104                           


               103In this connection, all of the canceled checks that are              
          included in petitioner’s documents were drawn on accounts owned              
          by persons other than petitioner and were signed by individuals              
          other than petitioner.  On the instant record, we find that                  
          petitioner has failed to carry his burden of showing that any of             
          his funds were deposited during 1991 and 1992 into the bank                  
          accounts on which those checks were drawn or that he otherwise               
          provided during those years the funds to pay certain of any                  
          expenditures relating to the Sanchez Street property.                        
               104In support of his position that he is entitled to deduct             
          for 1991 and 1992 the respective claimed Schedule E expenses                 
          relating to the Sanchez Street property, petitioner relies, inter            
          alia, on Mr. Dubrovsky’s testimony that petitioner was liable for            
          his share of the expenses on the Sanchez Street property.  We are            
          not required to, and we shall not, rely on Mr. Dubrovsky’s                   
          testimony.  In this connection, Mr. Dubrovsky gave conflicting               
                                                              (continued...)           


Page:  Previous  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  144  145  146  147  148  149  150  151  152  153  154  155  156  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011