Thomas P. and Ermina A. Krukowski - Page 2




                                         - 2 -                                          
               Victor A. Kornis, for petitioners.                                       
               Christa A. Gruber, for respondent.                                       

                                        OPINION                                         

               LARO, Judge:  This case is before the Court on cross-motions             
          for summary judgment.  Respondent determined a $28,184 deficiency             
          in petitioner's 1994 Federal income tax and a $5,637 accuracy-                
          related penalty under section 6662(a).  Petitioner, while                     
          residing in Greendale, Wisconsin, petitioned the Court to                     
          redetermine respondent’s determination.                                       
               Following respondent’s concession that petitioner is not                 
          liable for the accuracy-related penalty, we must decide whether               
          petitioner may offset the income and loss that he realized on his             
          separate rental activities.1  We hold he may not.  Unless                     
          otherwise stated, section references are to the Internal Revenue              
          Code applicable to 1994.  Rule references are to the Tax Court                
          Rules of Practice and Procedure.  We refer to Thomas P. Krukowski             
          as the sole petitioner.                                                       
                                      Background                                        
               Petitioner is the president and sole shareholder of two                  
          subchapter C corporations.  One corporation (the health club)                 


               1 Petitioner asserts that he treated the separate rental                 
          activities as a single activity under sec. 1.469-4(c)(1), Income              
          Tax Regs.  The record does not support this assertion.  To the                
          contrary, the record reveals that petitioner treated his rental               
          activities as separate activities.                                            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011