- 6 -
See Hamacher v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 348, 353-354 (1990). On
the facts of this case, the sole question is whether petitioner's
home was used exclusively for his trade or business. It was not
so used. Even though petitioner's trade or business was
exclusively conducted in his home, the portion of his home in
which he conducted his trade or business was not used exclusively
for that purpose. That factual circumstance precludes
petitioners' entitlement to a deduction of the home office
expenses at issue. This Court has previously passed upon this
same question. In Gomez v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-565,
this Court stated:
Exclusive use of a portion of a taxpayer's
dwelling unit means that the taxpayer must use a
specific part of a dwelling unit solely for the purpose
of carrying on his trade or business. The use of a
portion of a dwelling unit for both personal purposes
and for the carrying on of a trade or business does not
meet the exclusive use test. Thus, for example, a
taxpayer who uses a den in his dwelling unit to write
legal briefs, prepare tax returns, or engage in similar
activities as well for personal purposes, will be
denied a deduction for the expenses paid or incurred in
connection with the use of the residence which are
allocable to these activities. [Emphasis added.]
S. Rept. No. 94-938 (1976), 1976-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 49, 186; H.
Rept. No. 94-658 (1975), 1976-3 (Vol. 2) 695, 853; Joint
Committee Explanation, 1976-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 152.
Since petitioners' home (or the portion thereof used for the law
practice) was not used exclusively for petitioner's trade or
business, it follows that the home office expenses claimed for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011