Harold and Doreen Silk - Page 5

                                        - 4 -                                         
          and bearing a U.S. Postal Service stamp dated April 3, 1996.                
               On March 27, 1997, petitioners jointly filed a Form 1040,              
          U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for the 1995 taxable year (the           
          1995 return).  The 1995 return did not purport to be an amended             
          tax return.  On an attached Form 8582, Passive Activity Loss                
          Limitations, petitioners reported a total passive activity loss             
          of $159,683.  On line 17 of the 1995 return, petitioners claimed            
          a rental real estate loss in the amount of $25,000.  Petitioners            
          did not submit with the 1995 return an election to forgo the                
          carryback period with respect to an NOL, and nothing on the 1995            
          return itself suggested that petitioners intended to make such an           
          election.                                                                   
               Petitioners jointly filed a Form 1040 for the 1996 taxable             
          year (the 1996 return) on April 13, 2001.  On line 21 of the 1996           
          return, petitioners claimed a loss in the amount of $59,032.  A             
          statement attached to the 1996 return indicated that such loss              
          was an NOL “from a prior year”.                                             
               In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed the                 
          $59,032 NOL carryover claimed by petitioners on their 1996                  
          return.  Respondent determined that petitioners had not elected             
          under section 172(b)(3) to waive the carryback of the 1995 NOL.             
          Petitioners contend that the April 4, 1996 letter allegedly                 
          mailed to respondent with the so-called draft return was a valid            








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

Last modified: May 25, 2011