Chander and Ashima K. Kant - Page 2

                                                - 2 -                                                 
            petitioners' 1993 Federal income tax in the amount of $4,877 and                          
            an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) in the amount                           
            of $975.2  After a concession by respondent,3 the issue for                               
            decision is whether, for the purposes of the alternative minimum                          
            tax, petitioner Chander Kant (petitioner) was an employee with                            
            respect to items of income and expense related to his activities                          
            in Singapore.                                                                             
                                         FINDINGS OF FACT                                             
                  Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.                            
            The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits are incorporated                           
            herein by this reference.  Petitioners resided in Short Hills,                            
            New Jersey, at the time that the petition was filed.                                      
                  Petitioner is an associate professor of economics at Seton                          
            Hall University (Seton Hall), and petitioner Ashima K. Kant (Ms.                          
            Kant) is an associate professor of nutrition at Queens College,                           
            City University of New York.  In June 1993, Seton Hall granted                            
            petitioner's request for sabbatical leave.  In his application,                           
            petitioner maintained that a sabbatical leave would "result in at                         
            least two papers publishable in respectable journals, and will                            

            2  Respondent claimed an increased deficiency in her answer                               
            to petition in the amount of $960 (for a total deficiency of                              
            $5,837), asserting that petitioners were not entitled to a                                
            claimed child care credit.  The parties agree that petitioners'                           
            entitlement to the claimed child care credit is contingent upon                           
            our determination of the other issues.  Therefore, we do not                              
            separately address this issue.                                                            
            3  Respondent concedes that petitioners are not liable for                                
            the accuracy-related penalty under sec. 6662(a).                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011