- 8 -
appropriate because the taxpayer exclusively had, and was
intended to have, the benefits and burdens of ownership. See
Trans v. Commissioner, supra; Uslu v. Commissioner, supra. In
Trans and Uslu, the taxpayers lived in the houses, made all of
the mortgage payments, and paid all other expenses for
maintenance and improvements. In addition, the taxpayers in
Trans made the downpayment on the purchase.
In the present case, petitioner has not offered evidence
that the benefits and burdens he had from the Bronx Boulevard
house rose to the level accepted by this Court in Uslu and Trans.
Petitioner stated that he made payments related to the house on
behalf of his parents, whom he testified were his dependents and
had no bank accounts. Petitioner’s bank statements show that he
made only eight mortgage payments, none before May 2003.
Petitioner did not claim he contributed to the downpayment on the
house. We have no evidence to support petitioner’s claim that he
paid the premiums on the insurance policy covering the house.
The record is also unclear as to what extent petitioner even
lived in the house. Overall, we cannot say that petitioner’s
actions with respect to the house indicate that he treated the
house as his own or that he was intended to have the full
benefits and burdens of ownership.
We conclude based on the record that petitioner made
payments on his parents’ mortgage merely as a way to provide
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007