- 7 -
properties. Consequently, at trial we sustained respondent's
disallowance of the related expenses as deductions under section
162 or 212 due to a failure by petitioner to prove that he was
engaged in an activity for profit with respect to these
properties. Sec. 183.
Even so, the real estate taxes petitioner paid on these
properties could be deductible under section 164 and allowable
under section 183(b)(2). Brannen v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 471,
499-500 (1982), affd. 722 F.2d 695 (11th Cir. 1984). Section
164, however, is an itemized deduction. See sec. 63(d); sec.
62(a). Section 63 and the regulations thereunder do not
authorize the election to itemize deductions unless a return is
filed. Sec. 63(e)(1). Because petitioner failed to file a
return for the year in issue, he did not make the required
election. Consequently, petitioner is not entitled to any
itemized deductions for the year. Andreas v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1993-551. Thus, petitioner may not deduct under section
164 any real estate taxes he may have paid in 1991 for the Church
Road, Charlotte Street, and Langdon Grove properties.
After consideration of the record, we conclude that
petitioner's use of the following properties constituted an
activity engaged in for profit:
53 Mary Street, Binghamton, New York
99-101 Robinson Street, Binghamton, New York
18 Pleasant Avenue, Binghamton, New York
RD 2, Box 133 and Box 134, Conklin, New York
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011