Lauren Ostrow and Joseph Teiger v. Commissioner

122 T.C. No. 21
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 21, 2004
Docket6325-03
StatusUnknown

This text of 122 T.C. No. 21 (Lauren Ostrow and Joseph Teiger 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
Lauren Ostrow and Joseph Teiger v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. No. 21 (tax 2004).

Opinion

122 T.C. No. 21

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

LAUREN OSTROW AND JOSEPH TEIGER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 6325-03. Filed May 21, 2004.

Petitioner wife was a tenant-stockholder in a cooperative housing corporation. Tenant-stockholders may deduct their proportionate share of real estate taxes paid by a cooperative housing corporation of which they are stockholders. Sec. 216(a)(1), I.R.C.

Petitioner wife’s proportionate share of real estate taxes paid by the cooperative housing corporation was $10,489. Petitioners deducted $10,489 (1) from adjusted gross income for regular tax purposes and (2) in computing alternative minimum taxable income for alternative minimum tax purposes.

Held: A deduction under sec. 216(a)(1), I.R.C., does not reduce alternative minimum taxable income.

Ira Z. Kevelson, for petitioners.

Frank J. Jackson, for respondent. - 2 -

COLVIN, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in

petitioners’ 2001 Federal income tax of $3,698.

Petitioner wife was a tenant-stockholder in a cooperative

housing corporation. After concessions, the sole issue for

decision is whether a deduction allowed under section 216(a)(1)

for petitioner wife’s share of the real estate taxes paid by a

cooperative housing corporation reduces alternative minimum

taxable income.1 We hold that it does not.

Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the year in issue. Rule references are to the Tax

Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The parties submitted this case fully stipulated under Rule

122.

Petitioners resided in New York, New York, when they filed

their petition.

Lauren Ostrow (petitioner) was a tenant-stockholder of a

cooperative housing corporation in 2001. Petitioners deducted

$10,489, which was petitioner’s proportionate share of real

estate taxes paid by the corporation, as a miscellaneous itemized

deduction. In computing their alternative minimum tax liability,

1 Respondent first raised this issue in the answer. See Rule 142(a)(1). We need not consider which party bears the burden of proof because the issue is one of law. - 3 -

petitioners treated the $10,489 as deductible in computing their

alternative minimum taxable income.

OPINION

A. Background

Section 164 provides a deduction for real property taxes and

other specified taxes paid or accrued by the taxpayer during the

taxable year. Sec. 164(a)(1).2 In addition, a tenant-

stockholder may deduct amounts paid by or accrued to a

cooperative housing corporation within the taxable year, to the

extent that the amounts represent the tenant-stockholder's

proportionate share of (1) the real estate taxes deductible by

the corporation under section 164, sec. 216(a)(1), and (2) the

mortgage interest deductible by the corporation under section

163, sec. 216(a)(2).3

2 Sec. 164(a) provides in pertinent part:

SEC. 164. TAXES.

(a) General Rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, the following taxes shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year within which paid or accrued:

(1) State and local, and foreign, real property taxes. (2) State and local personal property taxes. (3) State and local, and foreign, income, war profits, and excess profits taxes. 3 Sec. 216 provides in pertinent part:

(continued...) - 4 -

Section 55 provides for an alternative minimum tax (AMT).

3 (...continued) SEC. 216. DEDUCTION OF TAXES, INTEREST, AND BUSINESS DEPRECIATION BY COOPERATIVE HOUSING CORPORATION TENANT-STOCKHOLDER.

(a) Allowance of Deduction.--In the case of a tenant-stockholder (as defined in subsection (b)(2)), there shall be allowed as a deduction amounts (not otherwise deductible) paid or accrued to a cooperative housing corporation within the taxable year, but only to the extent that such amounts represent the tenant- stockholder's proportionate share of--

(1) the real estate taxes allowable as a deduction to the corporation under section 164 which are paid or incurred by the corporation on the houses or apartment building and on the land on which such houses (or building) are situated, or

(2) the interest allowable as a deduction to the corporation under section 163 which is paid or incurred by the corporation on its indebtedness contracted--

(A) in the acquisition, construction, alteration, rehabilitation, or maintenance of the houses or apartment buildings, or

(B) in the acquisition of the land on which the houses (or apartment building) are situated.

Although sec. 216 refers to taxes or interest, a tenant- stockholder may deduct his or her share of both taxes and interest paid by a cooperative housing corporation. See Eckstein v. United States, 196 Ct. Cl. 644, 452 F.2d 1036, 1038, 1047-1048 (1971); Park Place, Inc. v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 767, 774 (1972); S. Rept. 1631, 77th Cong., 2d Sess. 51 (1942), 1942-2 C.B. 504, 546 (“The bill provides for a new deduction * * * of taxes and interest paid or accrued by a tenant stockholder to a cooperative apartment corporation”); IRS Publication 530, Tax Information for First-Time Homeowners 3-4 (2003 ed.). - 5 -

In computing alternative minimum taxable income (AMTI), no

deduction is allowed to an individual for, inter alia,

miscellaneous itemized deductions (as defined in section 67(b))

or “for any taxes described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of

section 164(a)” unless such taxes are deductible in computing

adjusted gross income; i.e., because incurred in a trade or

business. Sec. 56(b)(1)(A)(i) and (ii).4 Deductions under

sections 163, 164, and 216 are not miscellaneous itemized

deductions, sec. 67(b)(1), (2), (12), and are therefore

deductible in computing AMTI, sec. 56(b)(1)(A)(i).

4 Sec. 56(b)(1)(A) provides:

SEC. 56. ADJUSTMENTS IN COMPUTING ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAXABLE INCOME.

(b) Adjustments Applicable to Individuals.--In determining the amount of the alternative minimum taxable income of any taxpayer (other than a corporation), the following treatment shall apply (in lieu of the treatment applicable for purposes of computing the regular tax):

(1) Limitation on deductions.--

(A) In general.--No deduction shall be allowed--

(i) for any miscellaneous itemized deduction (as defined in section 67(b)), or

(ii) for any taxes described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of section 164(a).

Clause (ii) shall not apply to any amount allowable in computing adjusted gross income. - 6 -

Petitioners contend that amounts deducted under section

216(a)(1) are deductible in computing AMTI because section 216

deductions are not (1) listed in section 56(b)(1)(A)(ii) as

deductions denied in computing AMTI; (2) deductions “for any

taxes described in section 164(a)(1)”; or (3) miscellaneous

itemized deductions.

B. Statutory Predecessor to Section 216

Some historical context may be helpful to understanding the

dispute in this case. Before 1942, tenant-stockholders could not

deduct their shares of real estate taxes and interest paid by

cooperative housing corporations. See Holmes v. United States,

85 F.3d 956, 960 (2d Cir. 1996); Holden v. Commissioner, 27

B.T.A. 530, 538 (1933); Wood v. Rasquin, 21 F. Supp. 211, 213-214

(E.D.N.Y. 1937), affd.

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

Related

Fullinwider v. Southern Pacific R. Co. of Cal.
248 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court, 1919)
Deputy, Administratrix v. Du Pont
308 U.S. 488 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Commissioner v. Bilder
369 U.S. 499 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Bowles v. Glick Bros. Lumber Co.
146 F.2d 566 (Ninth Circuit, 1945)
Wood v. Rasquin
21 F. Supp. 211 (E.D. New York, 1937)
Francisco v. Comm'r
119 T.C. No. 20 (U.S. Tax Court, 2002)
Ostrow v. Comm'r
122 T.C. No. 21 (U.S. Tax Court, 2004)
Park Place, Inc. v. Commissioner
57 T.C. 767 (U.S. Tax Court, 1972)
Eckstein v. United States
452 F.2d 1036 (Court of Claims, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
122 T.C. No. 21, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lauren-ostrow-and-joseph-teiger-v-commissioner-tax-2004.