- 3 -
weekends.2 He sometimes worked for GTE on the weekends but
usually spent his weekends in Virginia with his wife, son, and
daughter.
Petitioner also was involved with 17 rental real estate
properties (rental properties) located in Virginia. He and his
wife jointly owned nine of these rental properties, two of the
others were owned by his brother, and the remaining six were
owned by a partnership in which petitioner was a partner.
Petitioner devoted some of his personal time during each of the
subject years to maintaining and accounting for all of the rental
properties.
On his 1994 and 1995 Federal income tax returns, petitioner
recognized losses of $115,977 and $92,037, respectively,
attributable to the rental properties. Respondent determined
that these losses were passive losses the recognition of which
was prohibited by the passive activity loss rules of section 469.
OPINION
Respondent determined and argues that petitioner may not
deduct his claimed losses on account of the rules of section 469,
2 Petitioner asks the Court to find as a fact that he worked
in Massachusetts fewer than 3 days a week, referencing his 1994
and 1995 Massachusetts nonresident income tax returns reporting
that he worked in Massachusetts during those respective years on
96 days and 86 days. We decline to do so. The record as a whole
indicates that petitioner was physically present in Waltham at
least 46 weeks while he worked for GTE, less 25 percent of that
time during which he was physically absent from Waltham while
conducting business for GTE.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011