- 7 -
Pursuant to section 280A(d)(2)(A), petitioners are deemed to
have used 2117 Hollins Court for personal purposes during the
taxable years in issue. Since 2117 Hollins Court was not rented
at a fair rental for any day of the taxable years in issue, none
of the claimed deductions are allowable under section 280A(c)(3)
and (e)(1) by reason of being attributable to its rental.2 See
Colbert v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-30; Gilchrist v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-288. The only expenses which are
deductible by petitioners with respect to 2117 Hollins Court are
those expenses which are deductible without regard to whether it
was rented. See sec. 280A(b) and (e)(2).
Based on the record, we find that petitioners paid the
following amounts3 with respect to 2117 Hollins Court:
Year Interest Taxes
1990 $4,522 $1,140
1991 6,881 1,180
1992 4,659 1,195
2 It appears that respondent erroneously determined that
all of the substantiated expenses were deductible under sec.
280A(c)(3) and (e)(1) and relied only on the sec. 280A(c)(5)
gross income limitation. We do not reach sec. 280A(c)(5) where,
as in this case, none of the disputed amounts in the first
instance meet the sec. 280A(c)(3) and (e)(1) conditions for
deductibility. See sec. 280A(c)(5); Bolton v. Commissioner,
supra at 109.
3 These amounts consist of the interest and taxes
determined by respondent in the statutory notice of deficiency to
have been substantiated. We find that petitioners have failed to
substantiate the "other interest" claimed by them and disallowed
by respondent which they claim was paid on a promissory note
secured by a second deed of trust on 2117 Hollins Court.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011