§13143

utions. The legislative history ofthe statute supports the consequence ofthis distinction. Congress considered including "finance operations" in the activities listed in section 469(c)(7)(C) but specifically did not do so. See H.R. 2264, 103d Cong., sec. 13143 (1993); H.R. 1414, 102d Cong. (1991); S. 1257, 102d Cong. (1991); H.R. 3732, 101st Cong. (1989); S. 2384, 101st Cong. (1989). Mr. Hickam relies on Perez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-232, 2010 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 270, to argue that a loa

469(d)(1); see also sec.

Section 469(i), with respect to rental real estate activities in which an individual actively participates, provides that the section 469(a) disallowance will not apply to a maximum of $25,000 of passive activity losses.3 There is allowed only one $25,000 offset for all of petitioner's rental activities per year.

13143(a), (c), 107 Stat. 312, 440. 3 Petitioner said in his opening brief that respondent conceded that petitioner is a real estate professional for purposes of sec. 469. Respondent did not address that issue in the reply brief, and we treat it as conceded by respondent. See Burbage v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 546, 547 n.2 (1984), affd. 774 F.2d

13143(a), 107 Stat. 312, 440.) Respondent's principal argument is that the section 469 issue is more appropriately determined at the partnership level and is therefore subject to computational adjustment. Sec. 6231(a)(3), (6). In that connection, respondent claims to have erred in abating the assessments for 1989 and 1990; that the penalties d

13143(a), 107 Stat. 312, 440. - 17 - claim a maximum loss of $25,000 per year related to the rental real estate.6 The general provisions for deductibility of ordinary and necessary business expenses under section 162 must be read in conjunction with the passive activity loss rules of section 469. These sections must be construed together with