Leslie A. and Betsy M. Roy - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         

          to petitioners, because the value of what they received is not              
          the fair rental value of the dwelling unit.                                 
               We note that for purposes of allocating allowable deductions           
          under section 280A(c), the taxpayer may deduct only those                   
          expenses attributable to the number of days the dwelling unit is            
          rented at a fair rental value.  Sec. 280A(e).  However, section             
          280A(g) contains no requirement that the dwelling unit be rented            
          at fair rental value for it to be actually rented for purposes of           
          this subsection, nor can we find any case purporting to impose              
          such a requirement.  Hence, we do not find the lack of a fair               
          rental value dispositive of whether section 280A(g) works in the            
          petitioners' favor.3  Examining the language of section 280A(g),            
          we find that there are other requirements which preclude the                
          petitioners from benefiting from this provision.                            
               Section 280A(g) requires that the taxpayer's "dwelling unit"           
          be actually rented for less than 15 days out of the taxable year.           
          Dwelling unit is defined in section 280A(f)(1)(A) as a "house,              
          apartment, condominium, mobile home, boat, or similar property,             
          and all structures or other property appurtenant to such dwelling           
          unit." (Emphasis added.)                                                    




               3In any event, petitioners presented no evidence with                  
          respect to the fair rental value of the portion of the dwelling             
          unit that was rented to Roy Farms.  Even if petitioners' argument           
          had merit, they would not prevail because they failed to meet               
          their burden of proof with respect to this fact.                            



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011