Lauren Ostrow and Joseph Teiger - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         

               COLVIN, Judge:  Respondent determined a deficiency in                  
          petitioners’ 2001 Federal income tax of $3,698.                             
               Petitioner wife was a tenant-stockholder in a cooperative              
          housing corporation.  After concessions, the sole issue for                 
          decision is whether a deduction allowed under section 216(a)(1)             
          for petitioner wife’s share of the real estate taxes paid by a              
          cooperative housing corporation reduces alternative minimum                 
          taxable income.1  We hold that it does not.                                 
               Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in                 
          effect for the year in issue.  Rule references are to the Tax               
          Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.                                      
                                  FINDINGS OF FACT                                    
               The parties submitted this case fully stipulated under Rule            
          122.                                                                        
               Petitioners resided in New York, New York, when they filed             
          their petition.                                                             
               Lauren Ostrow (petitioner) was a tenant-stockholder of a               
          cooperative housing corporation in 2001.  Petitioners deducted              
          $10,489, which was petitioner’s proportionate share of real                 
          estate taxes paid by the corporation, as a miscellaneous itemized           
          deduction.  In computing their alternative minimum tax liability,           



               1 Respondent first raised this issue in the answer.  See               
          Rule 142(a)(1).  We need not consider which party bears the                 
          burden of proof because the issue is one of law.                            




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011