- 20 -
to Florida was tied in with the Duquettes’ separation, she to
Florida, he to Washington. Based upon that proposed finding
respondent argues that the relocation and living expenses
associated with that relocation were personal expenses of the
Duquettes, the reimbursement of which constituted a nondeductible
constructive dividend.
3. Discussion
We agree with respondent. Petitioner is not clear on the
grounds for his deduction of the Florida expenses. To the extent
that petitioner claims a deduction for the Florida expenses under
section 162(a)(3), as rentals, petitioner has failed to
substantiate the business use of any rental property. We deny
such a deduction for reasons similar to those we set forth with
respect to the Dallas apartment amount. To the extent that
petitioner otherwise claims a business purpose for the
reimbursement of the Florida expenses, we find that such
reimbursement was made principally to serve the personal needs of
the Duquettes, in connection with the breakup of their marriage,
and only incidentally for any purpose associated with petitioner.
Petitioner has failed to prove that the reimbursement of
the Florida expense was an ordinary and necessary expense paid or
incurred during the 1994 tax year in carrying on petitioner’s
trade or business.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011