Richard and Judith Haeder - Page 15




                                        - 15 -                                        
          petitioner’s law practice and $109 of the expenses was related to           
          his investments.                                                            
               From March 29 through April 5, 1993, one of petitioners’               
          daughters took a trip to Portland, Oregon.  Airfare for that trip           
          was $201.  On audit, respondent determined that the trip was                
          undertaken for medical purposes.                                            
               From April 22 through May 6, 1993, Mrs. Haeder took a trip             
          to Salt Lake City, Utah.  Airfare for that trip was $198.  On               
          audit, respondent determined that the trip was personal.                    
               From July 1 through 5, 1993, petitioner took a trip to                 
          Minnesota.  Expenses for hotel, airfare, and rental car totaled             
          $987.  On audit, respondent determined that $494 of those                   
          expenses was related to petitioner’s law practice and $493 of               
          those expenses had been incurred for investment purposes.                   
               From July 6 through 7, 1993, petitioner took a trip to                 
          Seattle, Washington, and Salt Lake City, Utah.  Airfare for that            
          trip was $373.  On audit, respondent determined that $198 of                
          those expenses related to petitioner’s law practice and the                 
          balance of those expenses was personal.                                     
               From November 11 through 17, 1993, petitioner took a trip to           
          Boston, Massachusetts.  Expenses for hotel, airfare, and car                
          rental totaled $520.  On audit, respondent determined that those            
          expenses were not related to petitioner’s law practice but,                 
          instead, were incurred for investment purposes.                             






Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011