Richard S. Holbrook - Page 3




                                        - 2 -                                         
               Respondent determined a deficiency of $2,079 in petitioner’s           
          1996 Federal income tax.2  The issue is whether petitioner’s real           
          estate rental income constitutes “disqualified income” under                
          section 32, and, as such, exceeds the 1996 allowable maximum                
          disqualified income of $2,200 for earned income tax credit                  
          eligibility.  Petitioner resided in Danville, Virginia, at the              
          time the petition was filed.                                                
                                     Background                                       
               The applicable facts may be summarized as follows.                     
          Petitioner is a self-employed general contractor for custom-built           
          single family homes.  In 1996, petitioner operated a home                   
          construction business on a full-time basis and a real estate                
          rental property activity.  Petitioner reported a net profit of              
          $7,260 from the construction business in 1996.  Petitioner owns a           
          condominium and three commercial buildings.  Petitioner reported            
          gross rentals of $25,425 and a net income of $8,095 from his real           
          estate rental property activity in 1996.                                    
               Petitioner personally handled the renting, maintenance, and            
          collections for the real estate rental property activity.  He               
          employed no agents to assist him in these endeavors, other than             
          as required for the upkeep of the condominium under the terms of            


          2   Petitioner filed a joint 1996 Federal income tax return with            
          his wife.  The notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner and            
          his wife; however, petitioner’s wife did not petition this Court            
          and is not a party to this proceeding.                                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011