- 4 -
(2/3 X 3/4 = 1/2). Although respondent did not seriously dispute
that 75 percent of the home's floor space was used at some time
for the law practice, respondent questioned petitioners'
contention that this floor space was used two-thirds of the time
for the law practice.
As noted, the facts necessary to decide this case are not in
dispute--the principal place of business for petitioner's law
practice was petitioners' personal residence, and it was the
place used by petitioner's clients in meeting or dealing with
petitioner in the normal course of petitioner's trade or business
as a lawyer. Petitioner's law practice, therefore, was carried
on or conducted exclusively at his home. Petitioner was not an
employee, nor was his law practice conducted in a separate
structure from petitioners' home. A very crucial fact of this
case, however, is that the portions of petitioners' home used for
the law practice were not used exclusively for the law practice;
i.e., after business hours, and presumably on weekends and
holidays, the portions of the home used for the law practice were
also used by petitioners for their personal purposes.2
Generally, under section 280A(a) no deduction otherwise
allowable shall be allowed with respect to the use of a dwelling
2 As an example, the living room where petitioner's
clients were interviewed, or the kitchen table used for
conferences, was also used by the family as their residence
during off-business hours.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011