Fawzi and Dolores Tay Tay Assaad - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         
          to 3 Isabella and, as Mr. Assaad claims, to repay a portion of              
          Mr. Trudell’s prior loan or contribution.  Petitioners have also            
          substantiated that they paid $26,657.58 with respect to the sale            
          of 9 Isabella.16  Petitioners substantiated the following                   
          miscellaneous sales costs for 3 Isabella:  (1) A home warranty              
          expense of $275, and (2) prorated taxes of $674.36.                         
               Petitioners did not substantiate the remaining amounts that            
          they claim as miscellaneous sales costs for 3 Isabella.  Those              
          amounts represent a “credit to buyer” of $1,445 for a fence and a           
          “credit to buyer” of $565 for downspouts as part of the sale of 3           
          Isabella.  Petitioners did not establish that those expenses were           
          actually incurred to the extent claimed.  Petitioners, likewise,            
          did not substantiate the $63,000 they claim as expenses for                 
          “Fence, chandeliers, etc.”  Petitioners rely on a handwritten               
          document that a representative of Pacific prepared as evidence of           
          these expenses.  That document fails to properly substantiate the           
          amounts petitioners claim.  There is no evidence that petitioners           
          actually incurred those expenses in the amount claimed.                     
               3.  Foreclosure Expenses (15 Isabella)                                 
               Petitioners claim that they incurred $102,385.23 as                    
          foreclosure expenses.  Petitioners rely on two documents to                 

               16We note that $11,482.95 of this amount represents interest           
          from Mar. 1 to Apr. 7, 1992.  Pursuant to our discussion, which             
          follows, this amount would have to be reduced to account for the            
          portion of the loan from California Federal which petitioners               
          have failed to establish as deductible expenses.                            





Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011