- 2 -
be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion
should not be cited as authority.
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners’ Federal
income tax for the taxable year 1999 in the amount of $1,549.
After a concession by respondent,2 the sole issue for
decision is whether petitioners are entitled to a moving expense
deduction in excess of the amount allowed by respondent. We hold
that they are to the extent provided herein.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so
found. Petitioners resided in Berkeley, California, at the time
that their petition was filed with the Court.
Stephan Bartsch (petitioner) and Eva Bartsch3 (Mrs. Bartsch)
are a married couple. Petitioner is a citizen of Switzerland.
Mrs. Bartsch is a citizen of Germany. Before 1997, petitioner
and Mrs. Bartsch lived in a rented apartment in Zurich,
Switzerland.
In 1997, petitioner earned a Ph.D. degree in molecular
2 Respondent concedes that petitioners are entitled to a
lifetime learning credit under sec. 25A based on a payment in the
amount of $9,125.
3 Petitioner Eva Bartsch did not appear at trial and did
not execute the stipulation of facts. Accordingly, the Court
will dismiss this action as to her. See Rule 123(b). However,
decision will be entered against petitioner Eva Bartsch
consistent with the decision entered against petitioner Stephan
Bartsch as to the deficiency in tax.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011