- 6 - 1T(e)(3)(ii), Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra. Respondent counters that AGI’s leasing activities are per se passive in nature and that petitioners do not qualify for any exception. Instead, respondent claims the losses by petitioners should have been suspended until a future date when petitioners had gains from passive activities. See sec. 469(b). We address, first, whether petitioners produced evidence sufficient to shift the burden of proof to respondent under section 7491. We address, second, whether one of the exceptions to the definition of a “rental activity” applies and whether petitioners materially participated in that activity. Burden of Proof Determinations of the Commissioner in a notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving otherwise. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Deductions are generally a matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving entitlement to claimed deductions. INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934). 4(...continued) professional under sec. 469(c)(7)(B). If a taxpayer qualifies as a real estate professional, the rental activities of the real estate professional are exempt from classification as a passive activity under sec. 469(c)(2). Instead, the real estate professional’s rental activities are treated as a passive activity under sec. 469(c)(1) unless the taxpayer materially participated in the activity. Sec. 1.469-9(e)(1), Income Tax Regs. Because we find that petitioners qualified for the extraordinary personal services exception, petitioners are not engaged in a rental activity, and we need not address whether petitioners qualify for the real estate professional exception.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011