Gregory M. Bestor - Page 8




                                        - 7 -                                         
               Section 280A limits the allowance of deductions related to             
          the use of a home office.  There is an exception if a portion of            
          the house is used exclusively on a regular basis as the principal           
          place of business for the taxpayer’s trade or business.  Sec.               
          280A(c)(1)(A).  Section 280A(c) requires that the taxpayer “use             
          the portion of the home solely for the purpose of carrying on a             
          trade or business and that there be no personal use of that part            
          of the home.”  Sengpiehl v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-23.               
               Petitioner deducted $1,480 for his home office expenses.  He           
          also deducted $445 for utilities and $835 for supplies used in              
          conjunction with his home office.  Petitioner provided limited              
          testimony regarding his use of the home office.  Petitioner                 
          admitted that his renter also had use of the home office.  While            
          petitioner may have used the home office for some business                  
          purposes, petitioner failed to show that the home office was used           
          exclusively for business purposes.  Accordingly, we sustain                 
          respondent’s disallowance of the claimed home office deductions.            
               Respondent allowed $1,126 of petitioner’s claimed Schedule E           
          deductions ($46 cleaning and maintenance expense + $30 insurance            
          expense + $858 repairs expense + $192 utilities expense) because            
          a small portion of his Hallwood property was considered rental              
          property.  Respondent also allowed petitioner a $574 depreciation           
          deduction.  Respondent explained this was with respect to                   
          furniture purchased by petitioner for the Hallwood residence                






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011