Gerald L. and Joy M. Zeidler - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         

               In Malek v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-428, this Court              
          held that the taxpayer, who was employed in an administrative               
          position with duties very similar to those of Mrs. Zeidler with             
          Ladish, and who obtained a Bachelor of Science degree from                  
          Alverno College in professional communications, had, by virtue of           
          the educational courses, qualified for a new trade or business.             
          The Court holds, therefore, that the educational expenses                   
          incurred by petitioners in the instant cases qualified Mrs.                 
          Zeidler for a new trade or business.  Respondent, accordingly, is           
          sustained on this issue.                                                    
               On their Federal income tax returns for 1990 and 1991,                 
          petitioners reported on Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss,           
          gross receipts and expenses relating to two residential real                
          estate properties owned by petitioners.  For 1992, petitioners              
          conveyed one of the properties to a corporation wholly owned by             
          them, JMZ Management, Inc.  The corporation qualified as an S               
          corporation under section 1361, and the loss sustained by that              
          corporation was reported by petitioners on their 1992 individual            
          tax return.                                                                 
               In the notices of deficiency, respondent disallowed expenses           
          attributable to one of the rental properties for the 3 years in             
          question under section 280A(a) for the reason that petitioners              
          had used the questioned property for personal purposes during               
          each of the 3 years in question for periods in excess of those              

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011