RITTER v. COMMISSIONER
Opinion
*161 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
POWELL, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of
Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 2,809 in petitioners' 1996 Federal income tax. After concessions, 2 the sole issue is whether petitioner 3 is entitled to an itemized deduction of $ 4,656 for investment interest paid on a loan to*162 purchase silver coins. Petitioners resided in Lisle, New York, at the time the petition was filed.
The relevant facts may be summarized as follows. Around 1990, petitioner began purchasing silver coins as an investment. He borrowed money from the Wilmington Trust bank to finance the purchases. Wilmington Trust held the coins. During*163 1996, petitioner paid Wilmington Trust $ 4,656 in interest on the loans used to purchase the silver coins. Petitioner received no income from his investment in silver coins during 1996. Petitioners reported no income from dividends, interest, royalties, or annuities.
Petitioners owned at least eight rental apartments in the Binghamton, New York, area. Petitioners reported net rental income of $ 10,864 from these properties. Petitioners did not employ a real estate agent to manage any aspect of the apartments. Rather, petitioner handled the advertising for the apartments, rented the apartments, collected the rents, and did all of the maintenance, including painting, plumbing repairs, etc. Petitioner spent at least 30 hours a week managing the apartments. For the purpose of the New York State social services, it has been determined that during 1996 the rental apartments were assets of petitioners' trade or business.
On Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, of their 1996 Federal income tax return petitioners deducted $ 4,656 paid to Wilmington Trust as investment interest. Respondent disallowed the deduction.
Respondent agrees that the interest paid to Wilmington Trust is interest on petitioner's investment in silver coins. Respondent contends, *165 however, that petitioners' deduction is limited to the amount of the "investment income", which is zero. Petitioners maintain that the net rental income received and reported on Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss, constitutes investment income.
In this regard, petitioners must contend that, as "property held for investment", their rental real estate properties were held in a trade or business activity "with respect to which (*) (*) (*) [petitioner] does not materially participate."
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division.
An order of dismissal for lack of prosecution will be entered as to Carole Ritter, and decision will be entered under Rule 155.
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Respondent concedes that petitioners are entitled to a sec. 179 deduction of $ 4,261. Petitioners concede that their claimed Schedule E (Supplemental Income and Loss) deduction of $ 10,160 for medical expenses is improper, and that only $ 6,434 was incurred for medical expenses deductible as allowed on Schedule A (Itemized Deductions).↩
3. Petitioner Carole Ritter did not appear at the trial or execute the stipulation of facts. With respect to her, we dismiss this case for failure to prosecute. See Rule 123(b). The decision, when entered, will be in the same amount as determined against petitioner Douglas Ritter. In the opinion, references to petitioner are to Douglas Ritter.↩
4. Investment income also includes interest, dividends, annuities, or royalties not derived in the ordinary course of a trade or business. See
secs. 163(d)(5)(A)(i) ,469(e)(1)↩ .
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.