- 11 -
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-632 (section 280A did not apply to
entire building where upper and lower portions were determined to
be separate and distinct dwelling units). However, there were no
separate and distinct dwelling units within the San Bruno
residence during 1991. Rather, as reflected in petitioner's
advertisements, the San Bruno residence consisted of a single
dwelling unit that was shared by petitioner and "housemate"
tenants during 1991.
Petitioner's alternative argument is similar to the
taxpayer's argument that we rejected in Russell v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1994-96, affd. without published opinion 76 F.3d 388
(9th Cir. 1995). In Russell we found that the taxpayer's house
consisted of a single dwelling unit even though the taxpayer
essentially occupied only the master bedroom and bathroom, and
the rest of the house was rented out to tenants unrelated to the
taxpayer. There are no meaningful distinctions between this case
and Russell. Consequently, for the reasons expressed in Russell,
we hold that for purposes of section 280A the San Bruno residence
must be treated as a single dwelling unit and proceed to consider
petitioner's primary argument on that basis.
Petitioner's primary argument, which deals with the
application of section 280A(d)(4), assumes that renting, or
holding for rent at fair rental value, all four bedrooms in the
San Bruno residence equates to renting, or holding for rent at
fair rental value, the San Bruno residence as a whole. Unless
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011