Mary Ann Tobin - Page 20




                                        -20-                                          
               Petitioner argues that the income against which we apply the           
          section 280A(c)(5) limitation is the gross income from the                  
          Broadmoor Gardens and farm activity as a whole.  We disagree.               
          Section 280A(c)(5) specifically limits the taxpayer's deduction             
          for business use of a residence to the amount of income derived             
          from the business use of the residence.  Petitioner contends that           
          she earned $1,100 from tour tickets in 1990.  However, she                  
          reported no ticket income on her 1990 return, and Broadmoor                 
          Gardens did not open until 1993.  Thus, we conclude that                    
          petitioner had no income from business use of her residence in              
          1990 and 1991, and that she may not deduct depreciation related             
          to her residence for 1990 and 1991.  See sec. 280A(c)(5)(A).4               
               The result would not differ even if we considered all of the           
          income from petitioner's farm and garden activity.  That is                 
          because, under section 280A(c)(5)(B)(ii), we would consider only            
          income in excess of expenses.  Petitioner had large losses from             
          her farm and garden activity in the years at issue.                         


               4 To the extent deductions are disallowed under sec.                   
          280A(c)(5), they may be carried forward to the succeeding taxable           
          year.  See sec. 280A(c)(5), flush language.  Sec. 168(e)(3)(D)              
          provides a 10-year period for depreciation for single purpose               
          horticultural structures as defined by sec. 168(i)(13)(B)(ii).              
          Petitioner contends that the conservatory is a single purpose               
          horticultural structure.  Petitioner also contends that she used            
          the conservatory exclusively for business.  Based on our holding            
          that petitioner may not depreciate any costs of the conservatory            
          in 1990 and 1991, we need not decide whether petitioner used the            
          conservatory exclusively for business in 1990 and 1991 or whether           
          the conservatory was a single purpose horticultural structure               
          under sec. 168(i)(13)(B)(ii).                                               




Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011