- 441 -
Unlike the taxpayer in Pepper v. Commissioner, supra, Kanter
did not actively solicit financing for his friend Feigan, nor did
he or his law firm receive fees for services rendered in the
transaction. He merely served as an intermediary to introduce
Feigan to another friend, Rappaport. There was no written
contract between Feigan and Kanter for the sharing of profits.
Accordingly, respondent's determination with respect to this
issue is sustained. We hold that Kanter is not entitled to the
claimed business loss deduction. We also hold that, because
Kanter received no fees and no contract existed therefor, the
expenditure did not bear a reasonable and proximate relationship
to the production of income. Thus, it is not deductible under
section 212.
Issue 20. Whether the Kanters Are Entitled To Deduct a Claimed
Charitable Contribution of $15,000 to the Jewish United Fund in
1982
FINDINGS OF FACT
On their income tax return for 1982, the Kanters listed
$25,182 in charitable contributions, which they were unable to
deduct on Schedule A as itemized deductions for the reason that
the return showed negative gross income of $287,536. The
limitation provisions of section 170(b) precluded any deduction
for charitable contributions. In the notice of deficiency for
1982, the various adjustments by respondent resulted in the
Kanter's having adjusted gross income for 1982 in such amount
Page: Previous 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011