- 13 -
currently in compliance with the ADA. Petitioners argue that the
program is an alternative to TRS and provides improvements to
TRS.
However, petitioners’ subscription to the program did not
enable them to comply with the ADA--they already were in
compliance with the ADA through the use of TRS. Svoboda v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-1. Therefore, the cost of the
program is not an eligible access expenditure within the meaning
of section 44(c), and, consequently, they do not qualify for the
disabled access credit. Id. Respondent’s determination
disallowing the credit is sustained.
Section 162 Trade or Business Activity
Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and taxpayers
bear the burden of proving that they are entitled to any
deductions claimed. Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner,
503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992). Taxpayers are allowed a deduction for
ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on a
trade or business. Sec. 162(a). The Supreme Court has stated
that "to be engaged in a trade or business, the taxpayer must be
involved in the activity with continuity and regularity and that
the taxpayer's primary purpose for engaging in the activity must
be for income or profit. A sporadic activity, a hobby, or an
amusement diversion does not qualify." Commissioner v.
Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 35 (1987). Whether a taxpayer is in a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011