- 12 -
petitioner deducted all of the rent, utilities, and telephone
expenses for the condominium. He did not establish that any part
of the condominium was used exclusively for business. See secs.
262(b), 280A.
Although petitioner’s trial testimony quoted above suggested
that “research” would allow him to support the business purpose
of various items, his answers to interrogatories compel the
conclusion that he would not and could not do so. For example,
petitioner had been sent interrogatories in which he responded to
questions as follows:
(1) How many [Tony Lama] boots were
purchased.
RESPONSE: Objection. Vague. Assumes facts
not in evidence. Ambiguous. Requires extensive
clarification.
(2) Provide a list of employees that received
boots.
RESPONSE: Same objection.
(3) What type of boots were purchased.
RESPONSE: Same objection.
* * * * * * *
(i) For the amounts for Ticket Master and Ticket
Connection:
(1) How many tickets were purchased.
RESPONSE: Objection. Vague. Ambiguous.
Grossly multifarious. Overbroad. Burdensome.
Impossible to answer based on the way the interrogatory
is stated. Notwithstanding objection, Petitioner only
offers the sufficient factual sworn testimony that all
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011