Steven K. Stoddard and Ellen M. Stoddard - Page 18




                                       - 18 -                                         
          back side of each of the two photographs that Ms. Stoddard                  
          testified show the Quissett after the alleged storm contain                 
          handwritten notations indicating that each of those photographs             
          was taken in July 1994, which was around 2-1/2 years before the             
          alleged storm that petitioners claim occurred on January 3, 1997.           
          Petitioners introduced no reliable evidence to establish that               
          those two photographs show storm damage, as opposed to, for                 
          example, the “restoration work” that petitioners undertook with             
          respect to the Quissett.  On the record before us, we find that             
          petitioners have failed to establish that any of the 14 photo-              
          graphs in question shows damage to the Quissett that was caused             
          by a storm that occurred on January 3, 1997.  On that record, we            
          further find that petitioners have failed to carry their burden             
          of proving that the Quissett sustained any damage during a storm            
          on that date.10                                                             
               Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,             
          we find that petitioners have failed to carry their burden of               


               10In light of our findings that petitioners have not shown             
          that the Quissett sustained damage as a result of a storm that              
          occurred on Jan. 3, 1997, we shall not address respondent’s                 
          contention that at the time of the alleged storm the Quissett was           
          the property of petitioners’ bankruptcy estate, and not petition-           
          ers’ property.                                                              
               Assuming arguendo that petitioners had established that the            
          Quissett sustained damage as a result of a storm that occurred on           
          Jan. 3, 1997, on the instant record, we find that petitioners               
          have failed to establish the amount of any deduction to which               
          they would be entitled under sec. 165(a).  See sec. 165(b), (h);            
          sec. 1.165-7(b)(1), (4), Income Tax Regs.                                   




Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011