- 16 -
Finally, in regard to petitioner's claimed deduction for the
depreciation of her home, respondent argued that petitioner was
claiming a double deduction for this depreciation. It is well
settled that the Internal Revenue Code should not be interpreted
to allow the equivalent of a double deduction. United States v.
Skelly Oil Co., 394 U.S. 678, 684 (1969). Here, petitioner
claimed, and respondent allowed, a depreciation deduction arising
from petitioner's home in the computation of her home office
expense. Petitioner is not allowed to claim a deduction twice.
Therefore, we affirm respondent's determination as to this issue.
D. Repair and Maintenance Expenses
Respondent determined that petitioner was not entitled to
claim a Schedule C deduction for repairs and maintenance in the
amount of $852.
Petitioner claims that $531 of the claimed deduction arises
from a computer service contract between Orad and Kansas City
Digital Systems. To substantiate payment for the service
contract, petitioner presented the check, discussed above, made
to the order of Lafayette Bank for $5,985. Petitioner claims she
used this check to purchase both the computer and the service
contract. Also, in support of the claimed deduction, petitioner
presented a service contract. Petitioner did not present any
evidence in regard to the remaining $321 of her claimed deduction
($852 minus $531).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011