Henry A. Julicher - Page 28




                                       - 28 -                                         
          buildings and land.  When depreciable and nondepreciable property           
          are acquired together for a lump-sum purchase price, the                    
          regulations under section 167 require basis to be apportioned               
          based on relative value at the time of purchase.  Sec. 1.167(a)-            
          5, Income Tax Regs.  Under the regulation, the ratio of (i) the             
          portion of the purchase price allocated as basis of the                     
          depreciable property to (ii) the total purchase price cannot                
          exceed the ratio of (a) the value of the depreciable property to            
          (b) the value of the entire property.  Id.  Of the total purchase           
          price of $393,378, petitioner allocated $285,619 as basis in the            
          depreciable property, i.e., the buildings; thus, under                      
          petitioner’s allocation the value of the buildings equaled                  
          approximately 73 percent ($285,619 � $393,378) of the value of              
          the whole.  Respondent’s argument is that the value of the                  
          buildings was proportionally less.  We find that respondent has             
          failed to carry his burden of proof.                                        
               Respondent has not presented any appraisals or other                   
          specific evidence of the value of the buildings and land at the             
          time petitioner purchased the Property.  Rather, respondent                 
          relies on more general evidence to cast doubt on petitioner’s               
          allocation, such as the fact that in 1988 (the year petitioner              
          acquired the Property), petitioner was issued a citation because            
          a portion of the south building was at risk of collapse.                    
          Respondent’s argument, essentially, is that the buildings had               






Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011