- 7 -
petitioners' house, was used as their residence during 1992. The
provisions of section 280A(a) do not apply to expenses
attributable to any portion of the dwelling unit used exclusively
on a regular basis as the principal place of the taxpayer's trade
or business. Sec. 280A(c)(1)(A). Respondent agrees that the
exclusive use requirement set forth in section 280A has been
satisfied. However, based upon the Supreme Court's holding in
Commissioner v. Soliman, 506 U.S. 168 (1993), respondent takes
the position that petitioner's home office does not constitute
his principal place of business within the meaning of section
280A(c)(1)(A). Therefore, according to respondent, section
280A(a) precludes petitioners from deducting the expenses
incurred in connection with petitioner's home office.3
In Soliman, the taxpayer, also an anesthesiologist,
administered anesthesia and treated patients at several
hospitals. Much like petitioner, Dr. Soliman used his home
office for billing, recordkeeping, and other purposes related to
his medical practice. Dr. Soliman did not treat any patients at
3Petitioners do argue for the application of sec.
280A(c)(1)(B), which allows expenses attributable to any portion
of a dwelling unit exclusively used on a regular basis by
patients, clients, or customers in meeting or dealing with the
taxpayer in the normal course of the taxpayer's trade or
business. We are satisfied that sec. 280A(c)(1)(B) has no
application in this case. Contacts by telephone between
petitioner and his patients do not satisfy the provisions of that
section, see Frankel v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 318 (1984), and the
rare visits by petitioner's patients do not constitute usage of
the home office for such purposes on a regular basis.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011