Carolyn D. Fenderson - Page 14
- 13 -
Among Exhibit 3-J, Exhibit 4-P, and petitioner’s calendar, we
find petitioner’s calendar to be the only record that complies
with the above regulation.6 For purposes of that regulation,
“ballpark [guesstimates]” contained in postevent records, such as
Exhibits 3-J and 4-P are entitled to little, if any, weight in
determining the extent of a taxpayer’s participation in an
activity. Bailey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-296; Carlstedt
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-331; Speer v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1996-323; Goshorn v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-578.
We have carefully and repeatedly reviewed petitioner’s
calendar. After doing so, we find that the estimates of time
spent on specific properties shown in Exhibits 3-J and 4-P are
overstated, at least to the extent as follows:
6 This is not to suggest that petitioner’s calendar is not
without problems. Petitioner explained that some entries made in
the calendar were made before the activity occurred, and she did
not adjust the entries later to reflect the actual duration of
the activity. See, e.g., Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
Furthermore, although the calendar contains many entries
related to petitioner’s rental activities, such as evictions,
collecting rent, inspections, meeting with contractors,
mediation, auctions, credit checks, listing reviews, screening of
prospective applicants, etc., there is nothing to connect these
activities to a specific rental unit or rental activity.
Similarly, the calendar contains numerous entries that do not, in
and of themselves, show how the activity was related to a rental
activity. For example, some entries on the calendar show only
the name of an individual and a phone number. Other entries
simply show the address of a rental unit. Some entries are
obviously not related to any rental activity. Finally, there are
some entries that are illegible.
Page: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Last modified: March 27, 2008