- 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