- 2 - giving rise to the disallowance of the deduction. In this case, the fact giving rise to the disallowance was I’s lack of a profit objective. R did not establish that, at the time P signed the return, P had actual knowledge that I, her spouse, did not have a primary purpose or objective of making a profit under sec. 183(a), I.R.C., with respect to the activity that generated the disallowed loss. Accordingly, P is entitled to relief from joint liability. 2. Held, further, since the activity in question was attributable solely to I, and there were no other adjustments in the notice of deficiency, the relief to P extends to the full amount of the deficiency. Kathy A. King, pro se. Curtis T. Freeman, pro se. James R. Rich, for respondent. OPINION RUWE, Judge: This case was assigned to Special Trial Judge D. Irvin Couvillion pursuant to section 7443A(b)(3)1 and Rules 180, 181, and 182. The Court agrees with and adopts the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below. OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE COUVILLION, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $7,781 in petitioner’s Federal income tax for 1993. 1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011