- 26 -
Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that
respondent’s business use determination was incorrect.
ii. Basis
Petitioner asserts that his basis in the Miami property
(excluding land and fill costs) was $491,182, of which $446,000
was depreciable.23 In the notice of deficiency, respondent
determined that petitioner’s cost basis in the structure was
$214,000, which represented the amount of the mortgage and note
executed by petitioner in favor of Amerifirst Mortgage Co.24
23We note that a depreciation schedule for Eureka Field
Nursery for the end of the fiscal year Dec. 31, 1985, reports a
cost basis of $446,985.19 in the structure, not $446,000 as
asserted on page 10 of his brief and not $445,182 as asserted on
page 13 of his brief.
24The notice of deficiency also adjusted petitioner’s cost
basis in the Miami property for allowed or allowable depreciation
on the basis of the business portion of the structure and using
the straight-line method with a recovery period of 18 years. In
his petition, petitioner calculates depreciation deductions on
the Miami property for the years 1988 through 1991 under the
straight-line method with a recovery period of 18 years.
Petitioner makes no reference in his trial memorandum to how
allowable depreciation deductions for the Miami property are to
be treated.
In petitioner’s posttrial briefs, he calculates allowable
depreciation for the period 1986 through 1991 for the first time
using a 31.5-year recovery period but makes no argument as to why
31.5 years is the correct recovery period.
The petition filed in this case, as it relates to this
issue, does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 34. The
petition did not provide any indication that petitioner intended
to make the recovery period an issue, nor did it contain a clear
and concise assignment of error on the part of the Commissioner.
See Rule 34(a) and (b)(4). Any issue not raised in the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011