Diana Lynn Taub - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          We sustain respondent in full with respect to this issue.  See              
          Finesod v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-66.                                
               2.  Issue Two                                                          
               We decide whether petitioner may deduct certain itemized               
          deductions that respondent disallowed.  Petitioner reported these           
          deductions on her 1989 and 1990 Schedules A, Itemized Deductions.           
               Petitioner’s 1989 Schedule A reports the following itemized            
          deductions:  $600 in interest, $2,750 of contributions by cash or           
          check, $490 of contributions by other than cash or check, and               
          $5,760 of “miscellaneous deductions” (before the application of             
          the 2-percent floor).  Petitioner claims a deduction for                    
          miscellaneous deductions, net of the 2-percent floor.                       
          Petitioner’s 1990 Schedule A reports the following itemized                 
          deductions:  $3,616 of medical expenses (before application of              
          the 7.5-percent floor), $1,700 of interest, $2,700 of                       
          contributions by cash or check, $490 of contributions by other              
          than cash or check, and $5,900 of “miscellaneous deductions”                
          (before the application of the 2-percent floor).  Petitioner                
          claims deductions for medical expenses and miscellaneous                    
          deductions, after reducing her reported amounts by the applicable           
          floors.                                                                     
               Respondent determined that petitioner’s 1990 medical                   
          deduction was $52, instead of the larger amount claimed by                  
          petitioner, because of the increase in her adjusted gross income            
          on account of the above-mentioned adjustments to her 1990                   




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011