Eugene J. and Kathryn A. Schumacher - Page 3

                                        - 2 -                                         
          effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the           
          Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.                                  
               Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners’ Federal             
          income taxes of $20,582 and $21,861 for the taxable years 1998              
          and 1999, respectively.                                                     
               The issue for decision is whether petitioner husband’s                 
          (petitioner’s) leasing activity is “insubstantial” in relation to           
          his S corporation business activity, such that petitioners may              
          group the activities for purposes of the section 469 passive                
          activity loss rules pursuant to section 1.469-4(d)(1)(A), Income            
          Tax Regs.1                                                                  
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are                      
          incorporated herein by this reference.  Petitioners resided in              
          Arlington, Minnesota, on the date the petition was filed in this            
          case.                                                                       
               Petitioner is the majority owner of Pro Flight Center, Inc.,           
          (PFC), an S corporation which was incorporated in February 1996.            
          After acquiring the assets of the former Stensin Aviation, PFC              
          began its business activity at the Beaver County Airport in                 
          Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, on March 15, 1996.  The assets                  
          acquired from Stensin Aviation included five airplanes, a fuel              


          1Petitioners do not dispute any other adjustments in the                    
          statutory notice of deficiency.                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011