George Vajda - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         

          make timely payments on the loan.  Fleet filed the lawsuit                  
          against no other person or entity.                                          
                                       OPINION                                        
          1.  Depreciation                                                            
               Respondent determined that TBP’s depreciable basis in the              
          buildings was $350,000 and that the buildings were fully                    
          depreciated as of the beginning of the subject years.  Petitioner           
          argues that TBP’s depreciable basis in the buildings was $926,500           
          and that they were not fully depreciated during any of the                  
          subject years.  We agree with respondent.                                   
               The depreciable basis of property is generally its cost, see           
          secs. 167(g), 1011, and 1012; Weis v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 473,            
          482 (1990), and a taxpayer such as petitioner bears the burden of           
          proving the depreciable basis in property, see Rule 142(a).4                
          Section 6001 mandates that taxpayers keep permanent records                 
          sufficient to establish their claims to all deductions.                     
               Petitioner produced no records at trial establishing TBP’s             
          depreciable basis in the buildings.  He attempted to prove that             
          basis primarily through his testimony.  Petitioner testified                
          vaguely that the buildings cost Alpha “in excess of a million               


               4 Contrary to petitioner’s assertion on brief, we do not               
          find respondent’s determination arbitrary or without foundation.            
          We disagree with petitioner’s assertion on brief that “the                  
          replacement cost figures introduced by respondent [at trial] were           
          so unrealistic that they amounted to an arbitrary and capricious            
          valuation”.                                                                 





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011