Krebs v. Commissioner

1992 T.C. Memo. 154, 63 T.C.M. 2413, 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 161
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMarch 18, 1992
DocketDocket No. 254-90.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1992 T.C. Memo. 154 (Krebs 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
Krebs v. Commissioner, 1992 T.C. Memo. 154, 63 T.C.M. 2413, 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 161 (tax 1992).

Opinion

DAVID KREBS AND CHERYL KREBS, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Krebs v. Commissioner
Docket No. 254-90.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1992-154; 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 161; 63 T.C.M. (CCH) 2413; T.C.M. (RIA) 92154;
March 18, 1992, Filed

*161 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.

Ira B. Stechel and Thomas J. Fleming, for petitioners.
Drita Tonuzi, for respondent.
COLVIN

COLVIN

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

COLVIN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies of $ 15,563 for 1979 and $ 52,642 for 1981 and an addition to tax of $ 13,160 for 1981 under section 6651(a)(1). David Krebs was a successful contemporary musical and theatrical promoter in the years at issue. Respondent disallowed: (1) Deductions attributable to expenses to promote Cheryl Krebs' music career, and (2) losses attributable to certain theatrical production, talent management, recording, and publishing endeavors begun as a business venture by David Krebs but which were discontinued.

After concessions the issues to be decided are:

1. Whether petitioner's promotion of Cheryl Krebs' music career was an activity engaged in for profit within the meaning of section 183(a). We hold that it was.

2. Whether petitioners are entitled to deduct $ 58,923 in 1981 and $ 80,674 in 1982 for expenses relating to Cheryl Krebs music activities. We hold that they are.

3. Whether petitioners are entitled to deduct under sections 162 or 165(c), *162 $ 151,645 for 1981 and $ 500 for 1982 for losses from several ventures. We hold that they may deduct losses with respect to Rockworld and America Live, but not with respect to Profiles in Shame, SoHo News, and the Cosmic Muffin.

4. Whether petitioners are liable for an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for late filing of their 1981 return. We hold that they are.

Respondent's deficiency determination for 1979 resulted from petitioners' claim for a carryback to that year. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. References to petitioner are to David Krebs.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

1. Petitioners

Petitioners are husband and wife who resided in New York, New York, when they filed their petition. They filed joint Federal income tax returns as cash basis taxpayers reporting on a calendar year basis for 1979 through 1982.

a. Petitioner

Petitioner received a law degree from Columbia University Law School in 1963. He also received a master of business administration degree from Columbia*163 University Business School.

In 1964 petitioner began working for the William Morris Agency, one of the largest theatrical agencies in the world. From 1964 to 1968, he was an attorney in the business affairs department, and he eventually became the assistant to the department head. From 1969 to 1972, he was a theatrical agent in the contemporary music department where Steven Leber (Leber) was the department head.

Petitioner and Leber left the William Morris Agency in 1972 to form Contemporary Communications Corp. (CCC). At CCC they managed and promoted musical groups and shows, including Jesus Christ Superstar and Beatlemania. Petitioner and Leber each owned 50 percent of CCC.

Petitioner invested in various rock and roll and pop musical projects, many of which were speculative. He sometimes paid funds to keep a project going to give him time to evaluate it, knowing that if he later abandoned it those funds would be lost. Overall, he was quite successful, although many of the projects that he was involved with ultimately failed. Some of his projects were very profitable.

b. Cheryl Krebs

Cheryl Krebs was the daughter of an actress. Cheryl Krebs enjoyed singing and performing. *164 She began vocal training when she was 8 years old. She took various music and acting lessons including some from Lee Strasberg at the Academy of Theatrical Arts. In the early 1970s she organized a five-person band called Piece of Mind that sometimes performed in public. Cheryl Krebs was under a management agreement with Peter Bennett, a record promoter for Apple records, from 1973 to 1976. She also developed a solo act called the Cheryl Ashley Experience. Cheryl Krebs appeared on television in a Bob Hope Chrysler Special. She sang in celebration of singer Bobby Vinton's birthday in Las Vegas. She joined the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) in 1974, of which she is still a member. She performed in various television soap operas. Cheryl Krebs was employed as a cocktail waitress at the Playboy Club from about 1970 to 1976 where she was a hostess whose duties sometimes included singing.

In 1977 Cheryl Krebs was represented by the Dorothy Palmer Talent Agency, Inc. (Dorothy Palmer), for 1 year. Her photo appears with others on the cover of the fall-winter 1977 Dorothy Palmer brochure. Cheryl Krebs is described in the brochure as an actress, model, *165 and singer. However, she only did print modeling for Dorothy Palmer.

Cheryl Krebs and petitioner were married on July 22, 1979. In that year Cheryl Krebs sang with a band called Ashley and Glen.

Although she or the band with whom she was performing was paid for some performances, she never made a profit at singing.

2. Contemporary Communications Corp. (CCC)

Petitioner and Leber formed CCC to promote and manage rock and pop groups. CCC also became a record production company.

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

Related

Frank v. Commissioner
20 T.C. 511 (U.S. Tax Court, 1953)
Dean v. Commissioner
56 T.C. 895 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Jackson v. Commissioner
59 T.C. 312 (U.S. Tax Court, 1972)
Dunn v. Commissioner
70 T.C. 715 (U.S. Tax Court, 1978)
Allen v. Commissioner
72 T.C. 28 (U.S. Tax Court, 1979)
Golanty v. Commissioner
72 T.C. 411 (U.S. Tax Court, 1979)
Engdahl v. Commissioner
72 T.C. 659 (U.S. Tax Court, 1979)
Dreicer v. Commissioner
78 T.C. No. 44 (U.S. Tax Court, 1982)
Surloff v. Commissioner
81 T.C. No. 17 (U.S. Tax Court, 1983)
Seaman v. Commissioner
84 T.C. No. 38 (U.S. Tax Court, 1985)
Herrick v. Commissioner
85 T.C. No. 12 (U.S. Tax Court, 1985)
Abramson v. Commissioner
86 T.C. No. 23 (U.S. Tax Court, 1986)
Hardy v. Commissioner
93 T.C. No. 56 (U.S. Tax Court, 1989)
Pino v. Commissioner
1987 T.C. Memo. 28 (U.S. Tax Court, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1992 T.C. Memo. 154, 63 T.C.M. 2413, 1992 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krebs-v-commissioner-tax-1992.