                           T.C. Memo. 1998-257



                         UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                   MARIA M. MASLOFF, Petitioner v.
            COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



       Docket No. 1216-97.                         Filed July 14, 1998.



       Maria M. Masloff, pro se.

       Christine V. Olsen, for respondent.


                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

       CHIECHI, Judge:    Respondent determined the following

deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income

tax:
                               - 2 -


                                     Additions to Tax
     Year       Deficiency     Sec. 6651(a)(1)1    Sec.6654
     1988         $58,987           $14,230         $3,626
     1989           4,666               100            --
     1992         123,520            30,880           5,389

     The issues remaining for decision are:

     (1) Should the determinations of respondent in the notice of

deficiency (notice) that the parties have not resolved be

sustained?   We hold that they should.

     (2) Is petitioner entitled for 1988 to a claimed loss for an

alleged investment?   We hold that she is not.

     (3) Is petitioner entitled for 1988 to increase her basis in

certain real property that she sold during that year?   We hold

that she is not.

     (4) Is petitioner entitled for 1992 to deduct approximately

one-half of certain mortgage interest that she paid during that

year in Schedule A and one-half of such interest in Schedule E?

We hold that she is not.

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

The stipulation of facts (stipulation) and the exhibits attached

thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.

     Petitioner resided in Hesperia, California, at the time the

petition was filed.



1
   All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years at issue. All Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                              - 3 -


     Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return (return)

for 1988 or 1989.

     During 1988, petitioner received wage income from

Transamerican Plastics Corporation in the amount of $36,400,

pension income from Prudential Insurance Company in the amount of

$1,801, and interest income from Bank of America, Home Federal

Savings, First Interstate Bank, and Chino Valley Bank in the

amounts of $44, $242, $179, and $2, respectively.

     In the late 1960's, petitioner and her husband purchased a

two-bedroom, one-bath house on West El Repetto Drive in Monterey

Park, California (Repetto property).   Petitioner and her husband

resided in the Repetto property for a few years and then

converted it to a rental property which they leased for most of

the 20 years that petitioner owned it.    During 1988, petitioner

sold the Repetto property for $175,000.   At settlement of the

sale of the Repetto property, various amounts were credited and

debited against that sales price, as reflected in the final

settlement statement with respect to that sale.

     During 1989, petitioner received wage income from

Transamerican Plastics Corporation in the amount of $21,461,

pension income from Prudential Insurance Company in the amount of

$1,791, and interest income from Bank of America, Home Federal

Savings, First Interstate Bank, and Coast Bank in the amounts of

$12, $44, $12, and $699, respectively.
                               - 4 -


     During 1989, petitioner received gambling winnings totaling

$7,025 and is entitled to a Schedule A gambling loss in the same

amount.

     During 1992, petitioner received pension income from

Prudential Insurance Company in the amount of $1,851.

     In 1989, petitioner purchased vacant land on Harper Lake

Road in San Bernardino County (Harper Lake Road property) for

$48,000.   In 1992, petitioner sold that property for $160,000.

At settlement of the sale of the Harper Lake Road property,

various amounts were credited and debited against that sales

price, as reflected in the seller's closing statement with

respect to that sale.   Petitioner incurred deductible costs

associated with the sale of the Harper Lake Road property in the

amount of $17,402.   Petitioner realized a gain for 1992 from the

sale of that property in the amount of $94,598.

     Petitioner and respondent resolved by agreement many of the

determinations in the notice, as set forth in the stipulation.

We therefore turn to the issues that remain for our

consideration.   Presumably in an effort to show that respondent's

determination under section 6651(a)(1) for 1992 is wrong,

petitioner contends that she filed a return for that year.

However, the record is devoid of any evidence to support that

contention.   Petitioner also contends that she is entitled to

(1) a loss for 1988 from an alleged investment, (2) an increase
                               - 5 -


in her basis in certain property that she sold during 1988, and

(3) deductions for 1992 of approximately one-half of certain

mortgage interest in Schedule A and one-half of such interest in

Schedule E.2   The only evidence in the record to support those

contentions is the general, vague, and conclusory testimony of

petitioner.

     Petitioner has the burden of showing (1) error in

respondent's determinations in the notice and (2) her entitlement

to any new matters that she claimed at trial.     Rule 142(a); Welch

v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).     On the record before us,

we find that petitioner has failed to carry her burden of proof

on those determinations of respondent in the notice that she and

respondent did not resolve in the stipulation and on those

matters that she raised at trial.

     To reflect the foregoing and the agreement of the parties

that is set forth in the stipulation,



                                            Decision will be entered

                                       under Rule 155.




2
   Petitioner and respondent agreed in the stipulation that
petitioner is entitled for 1992 to a Schedule A mortgage interest
deduction in the amount of $13,128. Although it is not
altogether clear, it appears that petitioner is now claiming that
she is entitled to deduct about one-half of that interest in
Schedule E.
