- 19 -
of section 1.168-8T), regardless of the source of the
income generating the tax liability * * *
Petitioners maintain that they are entitled to deduct their
tax deficiency interest as a business expense on their Schedule C
because section 1.163-9T(b)(2)(i)(A), Temporary Income Tax Regs.,
supra, is invalid and interest on indebtedness is properly
allocable to a trade or business under section 163(h)(2)(A).
Petitioners rely on this Court’s opinions in Redlark v.
Commissioner, 106 T.C. 31 (1996), revd. 141 F.3d 936 (9th Cir.
1998), and Kikalos v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-92, revd. 190
F.3d 791 (7th Cir. 1999), despite their reversal because the
appeal in the instant case lies to the Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, which has yet to address the issue presented
here. See Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 757 (1970), affd.
445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).
Subsequent to trial and the submission of briefs in this
case, the Court addressed the same issue with similar facts in
Robinson v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. ___ (2002). In Robinson, the
Court revisited the issue of whether deficiency interest that
taxpayers paid in connection with their unincorporated Schedule C
business was deductible. We reconsidered our conclusions in
Redlark and Kikalos and held that section 1.163-9T(b)(2)(i)(A),
Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra, was valid.
For the reasons set forth in Robinson, we similarly conclude
in the instant case that petitioners may not deduct the interest
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011