- 8 -
Petitioner concludes from Mr. Salmon’s testimony that the
$413,500 estimate is consistent with the claimed basis of
$926,500 when viewed in the light of the “unusual circumstances”.
We disagree with petitioner for two reasons. First,
petitioner focuses inappropriately on the construction costs to
ascertain TBP’s basis in the buildings. Given the fact that all
of these costs were incurred between 1978 and 1980 and that TBP
did not purchase the farm from Alpha until 1986, none of these
costs enter into TBP’s depreciable basis in the buildings. TBP’s
basis in the farm, which by our definition includes both the
buildings and the land, equals the amount that it paid Alpha for
the sale. That amount is stated clearly in the deed as $350,000.
Petitioner makes little attempt to explain the $350,000
price set forth in the deed other than to assert on brief that
the Court need not accept that figure as TBP’s depreciable basis.
In his petition, petitioner did allege that TBP received the farm
from Alpha in exchange for Alpha’s receipt of an interest in TBP
and, accordingly, that section 723 operated to give TBP a
transferred basis in the farm. Respondent, however, denied that
allegation in answer. The allegation, therefore, is not
evidence. See Rule 143(b). Petitioner’s counsel also informed
the Court during his opening statement at trial that petitioner
would show that he had caused Alpha to contribute the farm to TBP
in exchange for a partnership interest. Petitioner never made
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011