- 10 -
where petitioner administered anesthesia to his patients, not at
his home office where he conducted billing and other activities.
The facts in this case are remarkably similar to the facts
in Soliman. Consequently, it is difficult to seriously entertain
petitioners' argument that the application of Soliman in their
case should lead to a different result. Accordingly, for the
reasons discussed in Soliman we find that the principal place of
petitioner's medical practice in 1992 was the hospital, not his
home office. Consequently, we hold that petitioners are not
entitled to a home office deduction for the year 1992.
Automobile Expenses
Along with other items not in dispute and the home office
deduction discussed above, on the Schedule C related to his
medical practice, petitioner claimed a $1,327.50 depreciation
expense deduction, and deducted other car expenses in the amount
of $3,287.85. The deductions apparently relate to a 1989 Mazda
automobile placed in service in April of 1989. According to
petitioners' return, 90 percent of the usage of the Mazda was
related to petitioner's medical practice. Petitioner did not
explain, and it is not otherwise evident from the record, how he
computed the $3,287.85 car expense deduction.4 In the notice of
4In their petition, petitioners stated that "actual auto
expenses rather than standard mileage should be allowed." There
is no evidence in the record, however, regarding any actual car
expenses incurred by petitioner in connection with his medical
practice.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011