- 7 -7
not here." Hays Corporation v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 436, 443
(1963), affd. 331 F.2d 422 (7th Cir. 1964).
A review of the legislative history of section 280A
indicates that Congress was concerned with alleged use of
business space in a residence. In the statute, Congress made no
exception for business use in a residence in a building which
formerly was used only for commercial purposes.
As to the Tenth Street property, the parties agree that
petitioner lived with her son on the top floor. The parties also
agree that the lower floor was used exclusively and regularly for
petitioner's business. The only point in issue is whether
section 280A and the overall limitation of section 280A(c)(5)
applies to petitioner's claimed business expenses because of her
joint use of the premises for living and business purposes.
Respondent states that respondent has found no legal authority
making a distinction where the building was zoned for commercial
use. Nor have we.
On the other hand, the Senate Finance Committee stated in
its report, S. Rept. 94-938 (1976), 1976-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 49,
186-187, that:
the committee amendment provides that a deduction will not
be disallowed in the case of a taxpayer who, in connection
with his trade or business, uses a separate structure which
is not attached to his dwelling unit (e.g., an artist's
studio in a structure adjacent to but unattached to his
residence).
* * * * * * *
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011