- 24 -
that record, we further find that petitioners have failed to show
that their cost basis of $165,000 in the condo should not be
reduced by depreciation of $5,491 for each of the years 1993,
1994, and 1995. On the instant record, we find that petitioners
have failed to show that their adjusted basis in the condo at the
time of its sale was greater than $148,527 (i.e., petitioners’
cost basis of $165,000 reduced by depreciation of $5,491 for each
of the years 1993, 1994, and 1995).
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that petitioners have failed to show that they did not
realize a long-term capital gain of $62,473 on the sale of the
condo (i.e., sales price of $211,000 minus petitioners’ adjusted
basis in the condo of $148,527). On that record, we further find
that petitioners have failed to show that they did not understate
their long-term capital gain for 1995 on the sale of the condo by
$37,269 (i.e., petitioners’ long-term capital gain of $62,473
reduced by the long-term capital gain of $25,204 that petitioners
reported in Schedule D of their 1995 joint return).
13(...continued)
a reduction in calculating petitioners’ adjusted basis in the
condo, was computed for the period that began on Jan. 1, 1995,
and ended on July 20, 1995, when petitioners sold the condo. If
our belief is correct, respondent’s position that depreciation of
only $5,491 for each of the years 1993 and 1994 during which
petitioners rented the condo must also be reflected as a reduc-
tion in calculating petitioners’ adjusted basis in the condo
would be advantageous to petitioners.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011