11 Petitioner testified that Mrs. Sengpiehl was available to serve his clients refreshments. One of petitioner's clients testified that she made phone calls from the kitchen. Petitioner also testified that his family would get coffee from the kitchen and that dinner was eaten in half of the kitchen. Petitioners have not established that any part of the kitchen was used exclusively in petitioner's business. Petitioners are not entitled to a deduction for the expenses allocable to the kitchen. Petitioners argue that petitioner's home office included the bathroom. Respondent counters that petitioners used the bathroom for personal purposes and have failed to meet the requirements of section 280A(c). We agree with respondent. Petitioner testified that the bathroom was available for his clients' use, and that his children were not present in the house during the normal business hours of his law practice. Petitioners have failed to establish that the bathroom was exclusively used for business purposes, and no deduction may be allowed with respect to this portion of the house. Petitioners contend that petitioner's home office includes a portion of their basement used by petitioner for storage of legal materials. Respondent argues that petitioners are not entitled to a deduction for the storage space under section 280A(c)(2). Petitioners argue that respondent raised this issue initially onPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011