- 15 - entirety and, in lieu thereof, allowed petitioner the standard deduction for that year. Thus, following respondent's adjustments for 1992, petitioner did not realize any tax benefit in 1992 from the deduction of State income taxes, and, consequently, petitioner would not be required to include any of her 1992 State income tax refund in her 1993 income.5 Rather than including an additional amount in petitioner's 1993 income, respondent should have reduced petitioner's 1993 income by $729, the amount of State income tax refund that petitioner reported as taxable income on her 1993 return. Consequently, if the Court sustains respondent's determination that BRVC was an activity not engaged in for profit in 1992, thus upholding the disallowance of itemized deductions for that year, petitioner would not be required to include any State income tax refund in her 1993 income.6 Thus, if respondent is sustained on the primary issue in this case, a computation 5 It is notable that, even if there had been an increase in 1992 itemized deductions (which did not happen in this case), respondent should have included no more than $498 in petitioner's 1993 income ($1,227 - $729 = $498) because petitioner had reported $729 on her 1993 return. 6 On the other hand, if petitioner prevails on the issue of whether BRVC was an activity not engaged in for profit, this adjustment would be remedied as a result thereof because respondent characterizes it as a computational adjustment flowing from the determination that BRVC was an activity not engaged in for profit.Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011