-7- another). If Hawthorne had filed a separate return, Hawthorne could have deducted Medi-Task expenses because she owned Medi- Task and because Charlton may not deduct Hawthorne’s business expenses. See Deputy v. duPont, supra; Bennett Land Co. v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 904, 908 (1978). Hawthorne could have deducted Medi-Task expenses because she used Medi-Task income, all of which is allocated to Hawthorne, to pay Medi-Task’s expenses. See Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-9 (husband cannot deduct taxes or mortgage interest that he paid on a house that his wife owned where the mortgage was her obligation and he was liable for the debt only as a guarantor), affd. 652 F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1981); Finney v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1976- 329 (the spouse providing funds may deduct interest paid on jointly owned property). Charlton contends that one-half of the Medi-Task deductions are attributable to him under Texas community property laws. We disagree. Allocation under section 6015(d)(3) is made without regard to community property laws. See sec. 6015(a) (flush language). We conclude that the $2,050 of unclaimed Medi-Task expenses are allocable to Hawthorne under section 6015(d)(3)(A). B. Whether the Self-Employment Tax Deduction Relating to Medi- Task Is Allocable Solely to Hawthorne Charlton contends that the self-employment tax relating to Medi-Task is allocable solely to Hawthorne, but that thePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011