Michael J. Rozzano, Jr., and Rose Marie Rozzano - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          request for an increase in the deficiencies in the event that we            
          sustain respondent in this matter.                                          
               Section 183(a) disallows deductions attributable to an                 
          activity not engaged in for profit.  Section 183(b) provides two            
          exceptions to this general rule.  The first, provided by section            
          183(b)(1), permits deductions that otherwise would be allowable             
          without regard to whether the activity is engaged in for profit;            
          the second, provided by section 183(b)(2), permits deductions               
          that would be allowable only if the activity were engaged in for            
          profit to the extent that the gross income from the activity                
          exceeds the deductions allowable pursuant to section 183(b)(1).             
          Section 183(c) defines an “activity not engaged in for profit” as           
          “any activity other than one with respect to which deductions are           
          allowable for the taxable year under section 162 or under                   
          paragraph (1) or (2) of section 212.”  In general, the                      
          Commissioner’s determination set forth in the notice of                     
          deficiency is presumed correct.  Rule 142(a)(1); Welch v.                   
          Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  In certain circumstances              


               3(...continued)                                                        
          overruled respondent’s objection and admitted Exhibit 14-J into             
          evidence together with the stipulation.  The Court instructed               
          respondent that it would not bar him from maintaining a different           
          position with respect to the taxable years at issue in the                  
          present case.  The Court informed the parties that it would weigh           
          this piece of evidence in the light of the entire record in the             
          case.  We recognize the implication of this documentation is that           
          respondent allowed depreciation on assets held for use in                   
          petitioners’ horse-boarding activities in taxable year 1996.                






Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007