Tony R. Carlos and Judith D. Carlos - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         
          The facts of the instant case appear to fall within the                     
          description of activity that Congress intended to prevent.                  
               Petitioners’ interpretation of section 1.469-2(f)(6), Income           
          Tax Regs., would effectively allow a taxpayer to subvert                    
          Congress’s intent.  Petitioners’ interpretation would allow a               
          taxpayer to convert nonpassive income into passive income against           
          which passive losses could be offset by manipulating the payment            
          of rent from a business controlled by the taxpayer on property              
          rented from the taxpayer to the controlled business.12  See Shaw            
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-35.  By converting nonpassive              
          income into passive income in this manner, such a taxpayer would            
          be able to shelter otherwise nonpassive income with passive                 
          losses.  Petitioners’ interpretation would allow petitioners to             
          shelter nonpassive income from the Bear Valley Road property with           
          passive loss from the John Glenn Road property, contrary to                 
          congressional intent.13                                                     

               12Because sec. 1.469-2(f)(6), Income Tax Regs., would apply            
          to recharacterize self-rental income under petitioners’                     
          interpretation only to the extent such income exceeds passive               
          losses within the activity grouping, only the excess would be               
          subject to recharacterization.  An amount of passive income equal           
          to the amount of passive losses would retain its passive                    
          character and, therefore, be sheltered by passive losses within             
          the grouping.                                                               
               13The result in this case might appear harsh, since, as                
          respondent’s brief recognizes, had the restaurant paid its rent             
          on the John Glenn Road property, petitioners could have properly            
          offset related expenses against that rental income.  However, we            
          must base our decision on the facts of the instant case:  the               
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011