- 9 -
petitioner actually spent servicing his rental properties.
Consequently, even if we were to give weight to the daily work
log, that document by its own terms would not have established
that petitioner spent more than one-half of his time engaged in
rental real estate activities or that the time petitioner spent
on such rental real estate activities amounts to more than 750
hours of service for purposes of section 469(c)(7)(B).
Other evidence introduced by petitioners at trial was
petitioner's letter to the Court, dated June 13, 2003, in which
petitioner described his typical work schedule and petitioners’
oral testimony at trial. It is well established that the Court
is not bound to accept at face value such uncorroborated and
self-serving testimony from a taxpayer. Shea v. Commissioner,
112 T.C. 183, 189 (1999); Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74,
77 (1986). Petitioners did not provide appointment books,
calendars, or narrative summaries describing in a detailed and
convincing manner the hours that petitioner actually spent
engaged in his real property activity and did not call any
corroborating witnesses to substantiate their own testimony. In
light of his full work schedule at the Dial Corporation,
petitioner would have to provide substantial and detailed
evidence to convince us that he managed to spend more than one-
half of his time on rental real estate activities or that he even
spent more than 750 hours on them during the year in issue. We
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011