J. Clark and Mary R. Bundren - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determination that                     
          petitioners’ carryover basis in the 84th Street property was                
          $134,500.                                                                   
               2.  Boot Received by Petitioners in the Exchange                       
               Respondent asserts that petitioners received $67,000 boot in           
          the exchange, representing the difference between the $134,500              
          sales price paid by Youngblood for the 84th Street property and             
          the $67,500 sales price paid by petitioners for the 116th East              
          Avenue property.  On their 1995 and 1996 Federal income tax                 
          returns, petitioners’ tax treatment of the 116th East Avenue                
          property was predicated on the assumption that they received no             
          boot on the exchange.  On brief, without explanation, petitioners           
          compute the basis of the 116th East Ave. property by treating as            
          boot $70,244, representing the difference in petitioners’                   
          $126,074 mortgage on the 84th Street property and the $55,830               
          cash payment that Youngblood made at the closing of the exchange.           


               6(...continued)                                                        
          testimony regarding the appraisal value was admitted over                   
          respondent’s timely hearsay objection because petitioners stated            
          that they were offering the testimony not to prove the truth of             
          the matter contained in the statement (i.e., the fair market                
          value of the 84th Street property at the time of the conversion),           
          but merely to establish the manner in which Walters determined              
          the tax treatment of the 116th East Ave. property.  For this                
          limited purpose, the testimony is not hearsay within the                    
          definition of rule 801(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence.  On             
          brief, however, petitioners attempt to use Walters’ testimony to            
          evidence the fair market value of the 84th Street property.  For            
          this purpose, the testimony is inadmissible hearsay.  See Fed. R.           
          Evid. 801(c).                                                               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011