9
Petitioner testified that he used the dining room to conduct
conferences and to execute various documents. Petitioner also
testified that he stored current legal files in the dining room
piled on the floor and on the furniture, although the only filing
cabinets were in one of the other rooms. Two of petitioner's
clients testified to meeting with petitioner in the dining room
area. Petitioner admitted that his family used the dining room
for family dinners but testified that this occurred on Saturdays
and Sundays only, on three birthdays, and on Thanksgiving.
Although the testimony convinces us that petitioner used the
dining room for some business purposes, petitioner has not
established that this room was used exclusively for business
purposes. Based on the record, we do not believe that the
personal use of the dining room was de minimis. See, e.g., Culp
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-270; Hughes v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1981-140. Petitioners are not entitled to deduct the
expenses attributable to this portion of their home.
Petitioner argues that the portion of his home allocable to
his business included the living room. Respondent argues that
petitioner has failed to prove that the area was used exclusively
for business purposes. Respondent contends that petitioner's
testimony is not credible and that we should infer from the
manner in which the room was furnished that petitioners and their
children made personal use of their living room, citing Hefti v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011