§63 — Taxable income defined
131 cases·21 followed·5 distinguished·2 overruled·103 cited—16% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §63
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus—
the standard deduction,
the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section 151,
any deduction provided in section 199A,
the deduction provided in section 170(p),
the deduction provided in section 224,
the deduction provided in section 225 and
1
1 So in original. Probably should be preceded by a comma.
so much of the deduction allowed by section 163(a) as is attributable to the exception under section 163(h)(4)(A).
For purposes of this subtitle—
Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the term “standard deduction” means the sum of—
the basic standard deduction, and
the additional standard deduction.
For purposes of paragraph (1), the basic standard deduction is—
200 percent of the dollar amount in effect under subparagraph (C) for the taxable year in the case of—
a joint return, or
a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),
$4,400 in the case of a head of household (as defined in section 2(b)), or
$3,000 in any other case.
For purposes of paragraph (1), the additional standard deduction is the sum of each additional amount to which the taxpayer is entitled under subsection (f).
In the case of any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 1988, each dollar amount contained in paragraph (2)(B), (2)(C), or (5) or subsection (f) shall be increased by an amount equal to—
such dollar amount, multiplied by
the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, by substituting for “calendar year 2016” in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof—
“calendar year 1987” in the case of the dollar amounts contained in paragraph (2)(B), (2)(C), or (5)(A) or subsection (f), and
“calendar year 1997” in the case of the dollar amount contained in paragraph (5)(B).
In the case of an individual with respect to whom a deduction under section 151 is allowable to another taxpayer for a taxable year beginning in the calendar year in which the individual’s taxable year begins, the basic standard deduction applicable to such individual for such individual’s taxable year shall not exceed the greater of—
$500, or
the sum of $250 and such individual’s earned income.
In the case of—
a married individual filing a separate return where either spouse itemizes deductions,
a nonresident alien individual,
an individual making a return under section 443(a)(1) for a period of less than 12 months on account of a change in his annual accounting period, or
an estate or trust, common trust fund, or partnership,
the standard deduction shall be zero.
In the case of a taxable year beginning after
December 31, 2017
—
Paragraph (2) shall be applied—
by substituting “$23,625” for “$4,400” in subparagraph (B), and
by substituting “$15,750” for “$3,000” in subparagraph (C).
Paragraph (4) shall not apply to the dollar amounts contained in paragraphs (2)(B) and (2)(C).
In the case of a taxable year beginning after 2025, the $23,625 and $15,750 amounts in subparagraph (A) shall each be increased by an amount equal to—
such dollar amount, multiplied by
the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, determined by substituting “2024” for “2016” in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof.
If any increase under this clause is not a multiple of $50, such increase shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50.
For purposes of this subtitle, the term “itemized deductions” means the deductions allowable under this chapter other than—
the deductions allowable in arriving at adjusted gross income, and
any deduction referred to in any paragraph of subsection (b).
Unless an individual makes an election under this subsection for the taxable year, no itemized deduction shall be allowed for the taxable year. For purposes of this subtitle, the determination of whether a deduction is allowable under this chapter shall be made without regard to the preceding sentence.
Any election under this subsection shall be made on the taxpayer’s return, and the Secretary shall prescribe the manner of signifying such election on the return.
Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, a change of election with respect to itemized deductions for any taxable year may be made after the filing of the return for such year. If the spouse of the taxpayer filed a separate return for any taxable year corresponding to the taxable year of the taxpayer, the change shall not be allowed unless, in accordance with such regulations—
the spouse makes a change of election with respect to itemized deductions, for the taxable year covered in such separate return, consistent with the change of treatment sought by the taxpayer, and
the taxpayer and his spouse consent in writing to the assessment (within such period as may be agreed on with the Secretary) of any deficiency, to the extent attributable to such change of election, even though at the time of the filing of such consent the assessment of such deficiency would otherwise be prevented by the operation of any law or rule of law.
This paragraph shall not apply if the tax liability of the taxpayer’s spouse for the taxable year corresponding to the taxable year of the taxpayer has been compromised under section 7122.
The taxpayer shall be entitled to an additional amount of $600—
for himself if he has attained age 65 before the close of his taxable year, and
for the spouse of the taxpayer if the spouse has attained age 65 before the close of the taxable year and an additional exemption is allowable to the taxpayer for such spouse under section 151(b).
The taxpayer shall be entitled to an additional amount of $600—
for himself if he is blind at the close of the taxable year, and
for the spouse of the taxpayer if the spouse is blind as of the close of the taxable year and an additional exemption is allowable to the taxpayer for such spouse under section 151(b).
For purposes of subparagraph (B), if the spouse dies during the taxable year the determination of whether such spouse is blind shall be made as of the time of such death.
In the case of an individual who is not married and is not a surviving spouse, paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be applied by substituting “$750” for “$600”.
For purposes of this subsection, an individual is blind only if his central visual acuity does not exceed 20/200 in the better eye with correcting lenses, or if his visual acuity is greater than 20/200 but is accompanied by a limitation in the fields of vision such that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angle no greater than 20 degrees.
For purposes of this section, marital status shall be determined under section 7703.
Treasury Regulations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.63-1 Change of treatment with respect to the zero bracket amount and itemized deductions
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.63-1(a) In general.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.63-1(b) No extension of time for claiming credit or refund.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.63-1(c) Special requirements if spouse filed separate return—(1) Requirements.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.63-1(d) Inapplicable if tax liability has been compromised.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.63-1(e) Effective date.
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.63-1(i) §1.63-1(i)
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §1.63-2 Cross reference
131 Citing Cases
Because he had a prior opportunityto challenge the liabilities for the 2008, 2009, and 2010 tax years, we hold that he is precluded from challenging the liabilities for those years.
Bedause"the mitigation provisions of sections 1311-1314 do not apply, -we hold that petitioner' s time-barred overpayment T claims for nondetermination years are not allowable as credits againstathe 1993 liability.
ome." On June 9, 2003, respondent sent petitioners a notice of deficiency for 2001 in which he determined*that petitioner was I not engaged in the trade or business of gambling and was therefore required to claim any gambling losses (but only to the extent of gambling gains) as itemized deductions (pursuant to section 63) and subject to the limitation of section 68, rather than as trade or business expenses under section 62(a) (1).
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPIN]ON 4 ; ·| VASQUEZ, Judge: Pursuant to section 6330 (d),/ petitioners seek review of respondent's determination to proceed with collection of their unpaid 2005 Federal income tax liability.
.I MEMiORANDUM OPINION GUSTAFSON, Judge This case is an ppeal by petitioner Cynthia Busche, pursuant to section 6330 d) ,1 asking this Court to review the notice of determination is ued by t he Office of Appeals ("Appeals") of the Internal Revenue Serv ce ("IRS") sustaining a proposed levy to collect Ms Busche s unpaid Federal income tax for the year 2008.
Hence, we hold that the settlement officer did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in rejecting the proposed 10-year installment plan .
On the basis of the foregoing, we hold that the trust is not petitioners' nominee under the Federal factors analysis." "In Richards v.
Each SFR allowed the standard deduction pursuant to section 63(c) (rather than itemized deductions, which Mr .
Under the circumstances , respondent was not obliged to conduct a collection hearing pursuant to section 6330 .
The issue involved is whether, following a collection due process hearing pursuant to section 63 0(b), that determination constituted an abuse of discretion ..
Tax, Court pursuant to section 6330(d) .' Petitioner.
MEMORANDUM OPINION JACOBS, Judge : This base arises from a petition for judicial review pursuant to section 6330(d) of respondent' s determination to proceed with collection of petitioner's unpai d -Federal income taxes for 2001 by levy .
d he has not asserted any argument or offered any documentation to convince us that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity or receipt of the notices for any of the - 13 - years that would preclude us from granting respondent's motion for summary judgment .10 Accordingly,- we hold that respondent properly determined that petitioner was not entitled to challenge his underlying tax liabilities during the section 6330 hearing, and we will review respondent's determination
MEMORANDUM OPINION GALE, Judge : Pursuant to section 6330(d)(1),I petitione r seeks review of respondent's determination to maintain a lien filing with respect to petitioner's unpaid income tax for 2000 , 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Cour
It appears that Tex. Prop. Code Ann. sec. 42.001(b)(1) (Vernon 2000) is the correct citation. 4 Sec. 334.2 of the Internal Revenue Manual has been superseded by 2 Administration, Internal Revenue Manual (CCH), sec. 5.17.3.3.3.1, at 17,918, effective Oct. 31, 2000. - 7 - suit for failure to honor the levy is appropriate when a party fa
-notice of Federal tax lien to preserve priority and put other creditors on notice . See sec . 6323 . 5 - Section 6320 provides'that the'~Secretaryshall furnish the person` described in section 6321 with written notice of the filing of a lien under section 63.23 . This notice must be provided not more than 5'-business-days after the day the notice of Federal tax lien is filed and must advise the taxpayer of the' opportunity for an administrative review in the form of=a . hearing .' Sec'. 6320 (a
t every delay, however, constitutes a material breach. There must also be a causal connection between the delay and the damages suffered by respondent, in order for a material breach to be found on the basis of the delay. 23 Williston on Contracts, sec. 63:18 (4th ed. 2002). Respondent suffered no monetary i damage from petitioner's late filing of the 1998 return. Under - 42 - the facts of this case, the late filing, by itself, is not sufficient basis for a material breach of the contract. Adequ
Accordingly, we hold that petitioners are not entitled to a deduction for tax preparation fees. The fourth issue for decision is whether petitioners are liable for the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty. Respondent's determinations of negligence are presumed to be correct, and petitioners bear the burden of proving that the penalty d
On June 9, 2003, respondent sent petitioners a notice of deficiency for 2001 in which he determined that petitioner was not engaged in the trade or business of gambling and was therefore required to claim any gambling losses (but only to the extent of gambling gains) as itemized deductions (pursuant to section 63) and subject to the limitation of section 68, rather than as trade or business expenses under section 62(a)(1).
The Court rejects petitioner's argument that section 63 violates his due process and equal protection rights.
espondent's notice of determination.' The petition includes allegations that: (1) The Appeals officer failed to obtain verification from the Secretary that the requirements of any applicable law or administrative procedure were met as required under section 63 0(c)(1); (2) petitioners never received a notice and demand for payment; and (3) petitioners were denied the opportunity to challenge (a) the appropriateness of the collection action; and (b; the existence or amount of their underlying tax
s analysis. Section 1256(a)(1) and (3) concerns the timing and character of gain or loss from the sale deemed by section 1256(a), not the ultimate allowability of a deduction in respect of any such loss for purposes of computing taxable income under section 63.24 Cf. § 161; Winkler, 2 T.C. at 738 (stating, in relation to a different provision, that “[c]learly, no loss deduction is authorized by this subsection”). Other provisions, including sections 165, 1211(b), and 1212(b), work together to go
Section 1 imposes an income tax on taxable income, and section 63 defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions.
Gross Income Section 61 provides that gross income from whatever source derived is subject to federal income taxation.
Section 1 imposes an income tax on taxable income, and section 63 defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions.
As relevant here, “taxable income” is defined in - 7 - section 63(a) as “gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter.”5 The Code further provides that, “[i]n computing taxable income under section 63, there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in this part.”6 Sec.
As relevant here, “taxable income” is defined in - 7 - section 63(a) as “gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter.”5 The Code further provides that, “[i]n computing taxable income under section 63, there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in this part.”6 Sec.
As relevant here, “taxable income” is defined in - 7 - section 63(a) as “gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter.”5 The Code further provides that, “[i]n computing taxable income under section 63, there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in this part.”6 Sec.
Itemized Deductions Section 63 allows an individual, in detenmining his taxable income, to itemize his deductions rather than take a standard deduction.
B. Loan From OPC Petitioners claim $4,000 was a loan to Mr. Bolles and not a guaranteed payment. Mr. Bolles claims he took out a $4,000 loan with OPC that he never paid back. Whether a transaction is a loan for Federal income tax purposes is a question offact. The following factors are considered in determining whether a loan i
Cost ofgoods sold is a reduction made in the course ofcomputing gross income. Sec. 1.61-3(a), Income Tax Regs. It is not a deduction, see Max Sobel Wholesale Liquors v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 477 (1977), M, 630 F.2d 670 (9th Cir. 1980), and therefore it is not disallowed by section 280E, Olive v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. 19, 32 (2012), , 792
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-121, 2006 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 124, at *10. 6. Additions to Tax Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for additions to tax pursuant to section 6651(a)(1) for the taxable years 2005-09. Respondent has the burden of production with respect to these additions to tax. See sec. 7491(c). To meet th
63.647, was reinstated on September 12, 2003, and then was administratively dissolved on March 20, 2009. MAC is no longer in existence under Oregon law. The Marshalls' Protective Disclosure On October 15, 2004, Richard and Patsy filed their Form 1040 for taxable year 2003, which included Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement,
Section 63 defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions. Mr. Blair stipulated that he received wages, a dividend, and a distribution from his retirement account. Section 61 defines gross income to include all ofthese categories ofincome. Accordingly, Mr. Blair is liable for income tax in the amount determined by the Commissioner. III. Mr
63.647, was reinstated on September 12, 2003, and then was administratively dissolved on March 20, 2009. MAC is no longer in existence under Oregon law. The Marshalls' Protective Disclosure On October 15, 2004, Richard and Patsy filed their Form 1040 for taxable year 2003, which included Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement,
63.647, was reinstated on September 12, 2003, and then was administratively dissolved on March 20, 2009. MAC is no longer in existence under Oregon law. The Marshalls' Protective Disclosure On October 15, 2004, Richard and Patsy filed their Form 1040 for taxable year 2003, which included Form 8886, Reportable Transaction Disclosure Statement,
Under section 63 an individual taxpayerwho does not elect to itemize deductions is allowed to deduct a standard amount--knownas a standard 2Petitioner does not contend, nor has he demonstrated, that he is entitled to a shift in the burden ofproofas to any disputed factual issue under sec. 7491(a). 3The exemption amount begins to phase out when a taxpayer
63 generally defines taxable income as gross income less allowable deductions. The parties' chosen language thus indicates that the income inclusions that the SOSI required have already been netted against any allowable deductions that Great Western reported. Although this stipulation was not executed contemporaneouslywith the SOSI, it is the
me Tax chapter generally have the same meaning as in the Internal Revenue Code unless a different meaning is clearly required. Va. Code Ann. sec. 58.1-301. Under the Internal Revenue Code, "taxable income" means gross income less deductions allowed, sec. 63, as distinguished from "gross income", sec. 61. - 14 - [*14] not his net income, and should be properly treated as an above-the-line deduction. This revenue ruling concluded that the New Hampshire Business Profits Tax (NHBPT) was deductible a
All ofthat income was gross income under section 61 and taxable income under section 63, and the amounts far exceeded the levels requiring a return under sections 1(d), 6011(a), and 6012(a).
All ofthat income was gross income under section 61 and taxable income under section 63, and the amounts far exceeded the levels requiring a return under sections 1(d), 6011(a), and 6012(a).
Income and deductions attributable to the sole proprietorship are reported on a Schedule C attached to each return. All ofthe income, $95,556 and $88,639 for 2009 and 2010, respectively, reported on the Schedules C is attributable to services petitioner provided to the patients ofthe clinic through the sole proprietorship. As relevant here
Under section 63 an individual taxpayer who does not elect to itemize deductions is allowed to deduct a standard amount— known as a standard deduction — from his or her income. See sec. 63(b) and (c). The standard deduction for petitioner was $5,700 for 2009. See sec. 63(c)(1)(A); Rev. Proc. 2008-66, sec. 3.10(1), 2008-2 C.B. (Vol. 2) at 1111-1112. Petit
Under section 63 an individual taxpayer who does not elect to itemize deductions is allowed to deduct a standard amount--known as a standard deduction--from his or her income. See sec. 63(b) and (c). An individual's standard deduction may be made up ofseveral smaller components. See sec. 63(c)(1). Single taxpayers who do not itemize are generally allowed
Gross income is defined as all income from whatever source derived. Sec. 61(a). Section 61(a) specifically includes in the definition of income wages and compensation for services, including fees, and interest. Settlementproceeds are included in the broad definition ofincome under section 61(a) unless they are damages received on account
- 9 - Ifan administrative hearing is requested, the hearing is to be conductedby the Appeals Office. Secs. 6320(b)(1), 6330(b)(1). At the hearing, the Appeals officer conducting it mustverify thatthe requirements ofany applicable law or administrative procedure have been met. Secs. 6320(c), 6330(c)(1). The taxpayer may raise any rel
The following expenses are shown as miscellaneous itemized deductions on the Schedule A included with the return: Expense Amount Unreimbursed employee business expenses $26,045 Tax preparation fees 150 Other expenses 1,259 The details ofthe unreimbursed employee business expenses deduction are shown on a Form 2106-ÉZ, Unreimbursed Employee
al, belonging to such person. In order for_ a 1;i.e under section 6321 to be valid against any. purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic's leinor, or judgment lien creditor, such a lien must be filed in accordance with the requiretpents of section 63 3 (f) . Sec. 6323 (a) . A taxpayer may appeal a lien filed under section 6323 by requesting an administrative hearing with the IRS under section 6320(b). Similarly, undèr section 6331, if a person liable to pay any tax neglects or refùses
A OPINION Section 63.30 provides for notice and opportunity for a hearing before the IRS may levy upon the property of any person .
's Appeals officer refused .to consider the correctness of petitioner's underlying 1998 Federal income .tax liability on the ground that petitioner already had two prior opportunities to, challenge that underlying tax,liability (first, in a section 6320 CDP hearing relating to the tax lien filing and second, in th e CAP proceeding .)2 Also, in the section 63.30 CDP hearing, respondent's Appeals officer did not consider petitioner's OIC .
The hearing generally must be con ucted in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 63 0 (c) , (d), and (e) .
etitioners were--not engaged in the. trade or' business of ..gambling, their gambling losses'are allowable only as itemized deductions . But'because petitioners have elected the standard'deduction,athey are-not entitled to-itemize-their deductions 3 Sec. 63 (b)°, (e) ; see Johnston v. Commissioner, supra; Heidelberg v Commissioner,' sura . `- We. reject as'without. merit petitioners' contention that this -statutory arrangement i s 2By "regular" gamblers, we'understand .petitioners to mean gamble
However, because we find that (1) he second and thir d notices contained new assessments not included on the first notice, (2) the second notice was not mailed to petitioner's las t known address as required by section 63 0 (a) (2) (C) , (3 ) petitioner timely requested a collection hearing after receiving - 30 - the third notice, and (4) respondent improperly denied petitioner's collection hearing request, as to the unpaid liabilities included in the new assessments we will deny respondent's mo
If timely requested, the Offic of Appeals conducts an administrative hearing under section 63 in accordance with the procedural requirements of section 6330 .
Although not defined in the statute or the legislative history, the term "underlying tax liability" as 9 - used in section 63.30 is "a reference to the amounts that the Commissioner assessed for a particular t x period * * * [and] may encompass an amount assessed following t e issuance of a notice of deficiency under section 6213(a)" .
2006-7, filed January 18, 2006, welfound that no notice of determination for purposes of section 63 0 had been issued wit h respect to petitioners' employment tax 1 1 abilities and granted respondent's motion to dismiss for lack f jurisdiction with respect to Mr .
On Ju e 17, 2002, respondent mailed to petitioner at petitioner s current address, and petitioner received, a second section 63 0 levy notice relating to petitioner 's 1996 assessed and unpaid $24,629 tax deficiency.
rted taxable portion was $1,089. Petitioners claimed a $395 tax credit pursuant to Form 8880, Credit for Qualified Retirement Savings Contributions.2 Petitioners did not claim any itemized deductions and instead claimed the standard deduction under section 63. 2The Social Security income and the retirement savings contributions credit are believed to be attributable to petitioner Fred E. Egerton. - 3 - During the year 2002, petitioner won $13,400 on slot machines at several casinos. The payers i
Part I, Section 63, defines "taxable income", gener- ally, as gross income minus the deductions allowed by Chapter 1.. The current federal tax law enacted by Congress is the Code. Section 6001 and 6011 of the Code provide, in pertinent part, that every person liable for any tax imposed by the Code shall make a return. Section 6012 of the Code provides that
Section 63 defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions . Section 61 defines gross income as including wages and the other categories of receipts admitted by petitioner . Arguments to the contrary have been consistently rejected and characterized as frivolous in innumerable cases . No further discussion of them is merited . See Connor v
Section 63 defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions . Section 61 defines gross income as including wages and the other categories of receipts admitted by petitioner . Arguments to the contrary have been consistently rejected and characterized as frivolous in innumerable cases . No further discussion of them is merited . See Connor v.
First, section 56(b)(1)(A)(ii) provides that in computing alternative minimum taxable income, no deduction shall be allowed for any State and local income taxes or real estate taxes.
1993-551 (section 63 and the relevant regulations do not authorize the election to itemize deductions unless a return is filed).
Section 63 defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions. All of the categories of income - 4 - received by petitioner during the years in issue are specified in section 61, which provides in relevant part: SEC. 61. GROSS INCOME DEFINED. (a) General Definition.–-Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income
That section provides as follows: In computing taxable income under section 63, there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in this part (i.e., part VI], subiect to the exceptions provided in part IX (sec.
Some of the claimed itemized deductions were allowable; however, because the total of such deductions was less than the allowable standard deduction under section 63, respondent allowed petitioner the standard deduction for both years.
In computing taxable income under section 63, there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in this part, subject to the exceptions provided in part IX (sec.
Petitioner admits that his wife received slot machine winnings in the amount of $1,773 in 1996, that this amount was not reported on their tax return, and that this amount is income subject to the Federal income tax. Petitioner argues that the taxation of the gambling winnings in his case is “unequal treatment under the law,” in violation
Resolving the question whether a taxpayer is engaged in a trade or business “requires an examination of the facts in each case.” Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 36 (1987) (quoting Higgins v. Commissioner, 312 U.S. 212, 217 (1941)). The Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Groetzinger, supra, addressing - 5 - the question whether a f
atus was single rather than married filing separately as determined in the notice of deficiency, the effect of which reduces the deficiencies and additions to tax. In addition, the notice of deficiency allowed petitioner the standard deduction under sec. 63 in lieu of itemized deductions for each of the years at issue. At trial, respondent conceded petitioner's entitlement to itemized deductions for the years 1994 and 1995. As to this issue, the question is petitioner's entitlement to itemized d
161 provides: “In computing taxable income under section 63, there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in this part, subject to the exceptions provided in part IX (sec.
In computing their taxable income, petitioners elected to take the standard deduction allowed by section 63 instead of itemizing their deductions.
In computing their taxable income, petitioners elected to take the standard deduction allowed by section 63 instead of itemizing their deductions.
1973); see also NCNB Corp.
Section 161 provides that "In computing taxable income under section 63, there shall be allowed as deductions the items specified in this part, subject to the exceptions provided in part IX".
8(...continued) (A) for work performed during the 90-day period ending on the day on which the contract to sell the old residence is entered into; (B) which are paid on or before the 30th day after the date of the sale of the old residence; and (C) which are-- (i) not allowable as deductions in computing taxable income under section 63 (defining taxable income), and (ii) not taken into account in computing the amount realized from the sale of the old residence.
(citing section 165(a)) provides that in computing taxable income under section 63, any loss actually sustained during the taxable year and not made good by insurance or some other form of compensation is allowable as a deduction, subject to certain limitations not relevant here.
Section 63 and the regulations thereunder do not authorize the election to itemize deductions unless a return is filed. Sec. 63(e)(1). Because petitioner failed to file a return for the year in issue, he did not make the required election. Consequently, petitioner is not entitled to any itemized deductions for the year. Andreas v. Commissioner, T.C
The amount is then deducted from adjusted gross income. - 5 - Adjusted gross income is calculated by deducting from gross income, inter alia, trade or business expenses "if such trade or business does not consist of the performance of services by the taxpayer as an employee." Sec. 62(a)(1). Congress decided that allowance of these deducti