GUTERMAN v. COMMISSIONER

2004 T.C. Summary Opinion 12, 2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 15
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedFebruary 9, 2004
DocketNo. 15780-02S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2004 T.C. Summary Opinion 12 (GUTERMAN v. COMMISSIONER) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
GUTERMAN v. COMMISSIONER, 2004 T.C. Summary Opinion 12, 2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 15 (tax 2004).

Opinion

HELEN GUTERMAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
GUTERMAN v. COMMISSIONER
No. 15780-02S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2004-12; 2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 15;
February 9, 2004, Filed

*15 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

Helen Guterman, pro se.
Frank J. Jackson, for respondent.
Pajak, John J.

Pajak, John J.

PAJAK, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was filed. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority.

Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 4,255 in petitioner's 1999 Federal income tax. This Court must decide whether a deduction allowed under section 216 for real estate taxes paid in connection with a cooperative housing corporation is an adjustment for purposes of the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

This case was submitted fully stipulated pursuant to Rule 122. All of the facts stipulated are so found. Petitioner resided in New York, New York, at the time she filed her petition. *16 Section 7491 does not apply because this case involves a legal issue.

During taxable year 1999, petitioner was a tenant- shareholder of a cooperative housing corporation. In connection with the cooperative housing corporation, petitioner was entitled to deduct real estate taxes in the amount of $ 13,092 as her proportionate share of such taxes paid by the cooperative. Petitioner deducted this amount on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, as "Co- op Real Estate Taxes" under "Other Miscellaneous Deductions". Petitioner did not include the $ 13,092 as an adjustment for taxes on the Form 6251, Alternative Minimum Tax -- Individuals, attached to her return.

Respondent contends that the amount at issue was improperly characterized as a miscellaneous deduction but that regardless where deducted on Schedule A, a deduction allowed under section 216 for real estate taxes paid in connection with a cooperative housing corporation is an adjustment for purposes of computing the AMT. Thus, respondent recalculated and increased petitioner's AMT in the amount of $ 4,255.

Section 216 allows a tenant-stockholder to deduct amounts (not otherwise deductible) paid or accrued to a cooperative housing corporation*17 within the taxable year, to the extent that such amounts represent the tenant-stockholder's proportionate share of the real estate taxes allowable as a deduction to the corporation under section 164. Sec. 216(a)(1); sec. 1.216-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.Section 164 allows a deduction for real property taxes paid or accrued within the taxable year. Sec. 164(a)(1); sec. 1.164-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.

Section 55 imposes an alternative minimum tax (AMT) on taxpayers, in addition to any other income tax imposed. An individual's AMT is determined by a recomputation of the individual's taxable income, which results in a new tax base, the AMT income. Sec. 55(b)(2). In determining the AMT income, certain adjustments are required and no deduction is allowed for any miscellaneous itemized deduction (as defined in section 67(b)), or for any taxes described in section 164(1), (2), or (3), except for a non-pertinent exception.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Klaassen v. Commissioner
1998 T.C. Memo. 241 (U.S. Tax Court, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2004 T.C. Summary Opinion 12, 2004 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guterman-v-commissioner-tax-2004.