In Uncategorized on 09/23/2019 at 16:01


Not even the “Frensh of Paris,” , whether “unknowe” or not, will do for Judge Colvin (Geoff Chaucer to the contrary notwithstanding), so Pascal Nsame and Lamiaa Msalka, 2019 T. C. Sum. Op. 26, filed 9/23/19, can’t put in their untranslated substantiation for their basis in their Canadian property.

“Documents written in a language other than English are generally not admissible unless the offering party provides an English translation. Petitioner husband testified that the French language documents, Exhibit 16-P, established the cost basis but later said that they provided information about the refinancing of the Canadian property…. The French language documents include no translation and thus are not admissible.” 2019 T. C. Sum. Op. 26, at pp. 6-7. (Citations and footnote omitted).

Here’s the omitted footnote. “Petitioners submitted one translated document with their answering brief. We generally do not consider documents submitted by one party after trial because the other party has not had an opportunity to seek additional testimony relating to the document. In addition, according to the translation, the document is a credit application and does not show the amount of petitioners’ cost basis in the Canadian property. Thus, we do not consider that document in deciding this case.” 2019 T. C. Sum. Op. 26, at p. 7, footnote 5.

Pas and Lam have other problems.

They claim a foreign currency loss for the debt service payments they made on the Canadian property while they rented it out.

“A foreign currency transaction loss can occur when there are changes in the exchange rate between the taxpayer’s primary currency and the currency in which the debt was denominated. Sec. 988(b)(2), (c)(2) and (3). Petitioners did not provide testimony or admissible documents to substantiate the amounts of payments they made on the mortgage during the rental period. Thus, petitioners have not shown they may deduct a foreign currency transaction loss.” 2019 T. C. Sum. Op. 26, at p. 11. (Footnote omitted, but it says the only documents Pas and Lam had were in French, untranslated.)

Pas and Lam aren’t through.

“Petitioners seek monetary damages from respondent on the grounds that respondent knowingly misrepresented the facts, made intentional false statements, and concealed the truth. There is no credible evidence in the record supporting petitioners’ claims on these points.” 2019 T. C. Sum. Op. 23, at p. 14.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: