Ragnhild A. Westby - Page 35

                                       - 35 -                                         
               (2) Petitioner expended $4,471.12 for office improvements              
          during 1987 (Ex. 38-R, lines 222-228).                                      
               (3) Petitioner purchased a copier for $3,068.64 during 1987            
          (Ex. 38-R, lines 323-332).                                                  
               (4) Petitioner purchased computer furniture for $3,003.09              
          during 1987 (Ex. 38-R, lines 212-218).                                      
               (5) Petitioner purchased office furniture and computer-                
          related items during 1988 totaling at least $5,632.26.16                    
               Respondent has conceded that petitioner expended the above-            
          listed amounts and that petitioner may depreciate these items but           
          attempts to reconfigure petitioner’s deduction by offering a                
          different depreciation alternative (7-year depreciation).  We               
          reject respondent’s attempt to recalculate petitioner’s                     
          depreciation and section 179 expense deduction because                      
          respondent, who raised this issue for the first time in a                   
          supplemental status report filed after trial, had the burden of             
          producing evidence regarding the proposed recalculation and                 

               15(...continued)                                                       
          the summary exhibits, Exhibits 38-R through 41-R, will assist the           
          parties in understanding which items we are allowing petitioner             
          to deduct and in preparing the Rule 155 computations.                       
               16Our inability to account for the full cost of items                  
          purchased during 1988 and included in the sec. 179 expense                  
          deduction claimed by petitioner is attributable to the fact that            
          petitioner’s depreciation and sec. 179 records were unbundled               
          during the pretrial review of petitioner’s records and mixed in             
          with petitioner’s office supplies records.  We have no doubt,               
          however, that petitioner expended the amounts claimed for 1988              
          (Ex. 39-R, lines 228-238, 241, 243-246, 248-259).                           





Page:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011