- 9 -
not offer any other evidence to show that he made payments on the
mortgage for the condo.
Petitioner’s evidence, as a whole, indicates that he was
more like a lessee than an equitable owner of the condo during
2000. Petitioner has not shown that he assumed the benefits and
burdens of ownership. See Baird v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 115,
124 (1977) (a taxpayer becomes the equitable owner of property
when he assumes the benefits and burdens of ownership).
The bank statements show that petitioner made numerous
purchases from Home Depot and Homebase to improve the condo.
After the improvements were completed, petitioner submitted a
Tenant Reimbursement Request for Alterations to Rental Unit to
the Tiernans to seek reimbursement for the materials and labor
spent on the project.
Furthermore, the letters dated 2002, between petitioner and
Mr. Tiernan, show that petitioner was facing eviction from the
condo because he was behind on his “monthly payments”. In one of
the letters, petitioner characterized a payment that he was
making to the Tiernans as “Lease/Rental of 5912 Walerga St. #2”.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that petitioner has
not treated the condo as if he were the owner and has not
established equitable ownership of the condo during 2000.
Respondent’s determination disallowing petitioner’s home mortgage
interest deduction is therefore sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011