- 8 -
the asset, and (2) the owner in fact abandoned the asset through
an affirmative act. United States v. S.S. White Dental
Manufacturing Co., 274 U.S. 398 (1927); A.J. Indus., Inc. v.
United States, 503 F.2d 660, 670 (9th Cir. 1974); CRST, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1249, 1257 (1989), affd. 909 F.2d 1146 (8th
Cir. 1990); see also United Dairy Farmers, Inc. v. United States,
267 F.3d 510, 522 (6th Cir. 2001). The amount of the loss on an
abandonment of depreciable property equals the property’s
adjusted basis at the time of abandonment. Secs. 1.165-2(c),
1.167(a)-8(c)(4), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner’s burden of proof requires that it establish:
(1) It intended to abandon specific assets during its 1997
taxable year, (2) it in fact during that year abandoned those
assets through an affirmative act, and (3) its adjusted bases in
the assets. See Burnett v. Houston, 283 U.S. 223, 227 (1931);
Stivers v. Commissioner, 360 F.2d 35, 40-41 (6th Cir. 1966).
Petitioner has not proven any of these elements. Although Laxton
testified that he intended on behalf of petitioner to abandon any
equipment placed on the lot which was not taken back to
Tennessee, we are hard pressed to determine on the basis of the
record at hand that any specific asset actually was abandoned.
Although petitioner may in fact have left on the lot one or more
pieces of the equipment, we are unable to find (and have serious
doubt) that petitioner actually knew what pieces of the equipment
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011