- 68 -
sale of each property were used for the Talmages’ personal
expenses and to develop the Rivercliff property.
The Court finds respondent established the requisite
evidentiary foundation connecting petitioner and Kumiko Talmage
with the receipt of the proceeds from the sale of both the
Vancouver and Black Butte properties in 1998. See Edwards v.
Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1982); Weimerskirch v.
Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358, 361-362 (9th Cir. 1979), revg. 67 T.C.
672 (1977); Petzoldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661, 689 (1989);
McManus v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-68.
B. Vancouver Property
Petitioner contends that Kumiko Talmage was the sole owner of
the Vancouver property because he was opposed to purchasing the
property, he was not involved in leasing the property, and he did
not report income earned or claim losses incurred from leasing the
property. Thus, petitioner asserts he was not required to report
any of the $31,231 gain from the sale of the Vancouver property on
his 1998 return.25
Petitioner’s own testimony and the record clearly show
petitioner and Kumiko Talmage owned the Vancouver property
jointly, and they recognized $31,231 of gain on its sale.
Petitioner was not a credible witness, and outside of his self-
25 Petitioner filed his 1998 return as married filing
separately.
Page: Previous 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008