- 124 -
Respondent also relies on his determination that petitioner
realized 100 percent of the gain realized on the sale of Lot 23
in the High Plains Property in 1985. The record is clear that,
at one point in time, petitioner and Mr. Schoolfield were 50-50
owners of the High Plains Property. However, it is not clear
from the record whether this 50-50 interest extended to Lot 23,
and, if so, whether petitioner and Mr. Schoolfield split up
before or after the sale in 1985. In our general discussion
relating to the deficiency determination, we have relied on
petitioner’s failure to overcome the presumption of correctness
which attaches to respondent’s determination. See supra. We
decided that petitioner did not establish that Mr. Schoolfield
owned 50 percent of that lot at the time of its sale, and we
decided that petitioner was responsible for 100 percent of the
gain realized. However, with respect to the fraud addition to
tax, we find that respondent has not proven by clear and
convincing evidence that petitioner was responsible for 100
percent of the gain from this sale. Petitioner agrees on brief
that he is responsible for half of the gain from this sale.
There is clear and convincing evidence that the fair market
value of the Citrus County Property at the time of the
foreclosure sale in 1985 was at least $87,000 and that petitioner
realized $85,15681 on the foreclosure sale in 1985.
81Gain realized ($85,156) = Amount realized ($87,000) -
(continued...)
Page: Previous 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011