                        T.C. Memo. 1997-439



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



            SYED MOHAMMAD JAMEEL HASAN, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 15950-94.               Filed September 25, 1997.



     Syed Mohammad Jameel Hasan, pro se.

     Christal W. Hillstead, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     FAY, Judge:   Respondent determined deficiencies of $6,611

and $5,753 in petitioner's 1990 and 1991 Federal income tax,

respectively.   The issues for decision are:    (1) Whether peti-

tioner is entitled to deduct passive activity losses claimed in
                                - 2 -


1990 and 1991, and (2) whether petitioner is entitled to a

foreign tax credit of $55 for taxable year 1990.

     When called for trial, the parties did not call any

witnesses or present any evidence, but they offered a stipulation

of facts and requested the Court to set dates on which to file

briefs.    The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.   Petitioner resided in

Cheney, Washington, at the time the petition was filed in this

case.

     For the years in issue, petitioner listed his occupation as

a college professor in his 1990 and 1991 Federal income tax

returns.    In 1988, petitioner had purchased limited partnership

interests in Intelligent Systems - Master Limited Partnership

(Intelligent Systems), a partnership that was publicly traded on

the American Stock Exchange.   Intelligent Systems, a company that

designs, manufactures, and markets microcomputer-related

products, had converted from a corporation to a master limited

partnership on December 31, 1986.   The master limited partnership

was subsequently converted back to a corporation on November 29,

1991.   In 1990 and 1991, petitioner's share of the net ordinary

losses suffered by Intelligent Systems was $28,666 and $20,340,

respectively.   Petitioner deducted these losses on his 1990 and

1991 Federal income tax returns.
                                   - 3 -


       Respondent, in the notice of deficiency, determined that

these losses constituted passive activity losses, and only 10

percent of these losses were deductible for 1990, and none of the

losses were deductible in 1991.      Further, for the taxable year

1990 respondent determined that petitioner was entitled to deduct

an additional $1,520 for personal interest expense but disallowed

a $55 foreign tax credit.      Respondent's determinations in the

notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and petitioner bears

the burden of proving otherwise.       Rule 142(a); Welch v.

Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).1

       Section 469 provides that passive activity losses of a

publicly traded partnership (PTP) are allowed only to the extent

of passive activity income from the same PTP.        Sec. 469(a),(k).

Disallowed passive activity losses must be carried forward and

used to the extent of future income from the same PTP or used

when the entire interest in that PTP is sold.        Sec. 469(b), (g),

(k).       A PTP is one in which the interests are traded on an

established securities market.       Sec. 469(k).   A "passive

activity" is any activity involving the conduct of a trade or

business in which the taxpayer does not materially participate.




       1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and all section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the
taxable years in issue.
                                - 4 -


Sec. 469(c).   The record contains no evidence that petitioner

participated in the operations of Intelligent Systems.

     Petitioner, in his brief or otherwise, fails to make any

credible argument that his share of the loss suffered by Intelli-

gent Systems is anything but a passive activity loss.      For

example, on brief, he writes:

     It is inconsistent and unfair to allow some businesses
     effectively to integrate the corporate and shareholder
     level taxes, by simply choosing to operate on a PTP
     rather than corporation. The Congress has expressly
     retained the double taxation of corporate income.
     Similarly situated taxpayers--like the petitioner--
     should be treated the same.

We do not see the import of petitioner's observations.      Even if

petitioner were treated the same as a corporate shareholder, the

losses suffered by Intelligent Systems would be nondeductible by

petitioner.    We conclude that this argument, like the remainder

of petitioner's arguments, lacks merit.      Further, petitioner has

put on no evidence to rebut any of respondent's determinations.

Accordingly, we sustain the determinations in respondent's notice

of deficiency.

     For the foregoing reasons,

                                        Decision will be entered for

                                respondent.
