- 9 - We find that the only valid section 179 election which petitioner made with respect to her 1994 taxable year was the one made on her original return. The election made on her first amended return and the other inconsistent claims made subsequent to the issuance of the statutory notice of deficiency in this case are not valid because they were made after the due date of her 1994 return. Moreover, petitioner's original election is irrevocable and binding in the absence of respondent's consent to its revocation. Id. The specific items of section 179 property and the respective costs thereof that petitioner selected to deduct under section 179 may not be changed unless consent to change them is given by respondent. Id. Since petitioner failed to obtain respondent's consent to revoke or change her original election, we accordingly disregard her subsequent claims for section 179 expense deductions for items and costs different from those listed on the Section 179 Expense Report attached to her original return. King v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-548. Of the items and costs listed on the original Section 179 Expense Report, respondent disallowed only the claim for $9,000 made with respect to the Neon on the Schedule E.3 Petitioner originally claimed that the Neon was used in the course of Master Plan's business and that she was entitled to a passthrough 3 As explained supra p. 4, respondent also disallowed the $3,000 claimed on the Schedule C which was not included on the Forms 4562 and the self-prepared reports attached to the original return.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011