Fred P. and Patricia M. Brandkamp - Page 3




                                        - 2 -                                         

          be entered in this case is not reviewable by any other court, and           
          this opinion should not be cited as authority.                              
               Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners’ Federal             
          income tax for 1997 in the amount of $560.  After concessions by            
          the parties,2 the sole issue for decision is whether petitioners            
          are entitled to a deduction in the amount of $2,000 for a                   
          contribution to petitioner Fred P. Brandkamp’s individual                   
          retirement account (IRA).  We hold that petitioners are not                 
          entitled to such deduction.                                                 
          Background3                                                                 
               Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so                
          found.  Petitioners resided in Duluth, Georgia, at the time that            
          their petition was filed with the Court.                                    
               Petitioner Fred P. Brandkamp (Mr. Brandkamp) was employed in           
          1997, the taxable year in issue, by Winter Wyman Contract                   
          Services, Inc. and Data Tabulating Service, Inc.  During that               
          year, Mr. Brandkamp was not covered by any qualified pension plan           
          or retirement program that may have been sponsored by either of             
          his employers.                                                              

               2  Respondent concedes the $13 adjustment in the notice of             
          deficiency for “dependent care benefits”.  Petitioners concede              
          the collection-related matter raised in the petition.                       
               3  At trial, we deferred ruling on certain relevancy                   
          objections made by Mr. Brandkamp to portions of various exhibits.           
          We now overrule those objections, and our findings reflect that             
          ruling.                                                                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011