Herbert L. Whitehead and Jennifer L. Whitehead - Page 49




                                       - 49 -                                         
          respective uses during those years of certain Burien Nissan                 
          automobiles.41  On that record, we sustain those determinations.            
          Petitioners’ Claimed Deductions for                                         
          Certain Mortgage Interest and Property Taxes                                
               Respondent determined to disallow any deductions for mort-             
          gage interest and property taxes claimed by petitioners for each            
          year at issue in excess of the deductions claimed by them for               
          each such year for mortgage interest and property taxes paid with           
          respect to the Sumner property.42                                           
               The parties agree that the mortgage interest and property              
          taxes at issue are attributable to the debt that Mr. Whitehead              
          and Essie Whitehead incurred when they refinanced the Kirkland              
          property in February 1994.  The parties’ disputes are whether Mr.           
          Whitehead paid any portion of the disallowed mortgage interest              
          and property taxes and, if he did pay a portion of the mortgage             
          interest at issue, whether that interest constitutes qualified              


               41We note that, when Mr. Stanford was president of Burien              
          Nissan, his employment agreement provided that he was entitled to           
          unrestricted access to two Burien Nissan automobiles for his                
          personal use.  Mr. Whitehead could have received the same benefit           
          when he became president of Burien Nissan.                                  
               42Respondent also determined to disallow the deduction for             
          points not reported in Form 1098 that petitioners claimed with              
          respect to the Kirkland property for each year at issue.  Peti-             
          tioners make no argument on brief with respect to their entitle-            
          ment to the deduction that they claimed for each year at issue              
          for those points.  We conclude that petitioners have abandoned              
          contesting respondent’s determinations disallowing the deductions           
          claimed for those points.  See Rybak v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.               
          524, 566 n.19 (1988).                                                       





Page:  Previous  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011