- 13 -
office was necessary for the functioning of the employer’s
business or to allow the employee to perform his duties properly.
See Frankel v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 318, 325-326 (1984); Green
v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 428, 430 (1982), revd. on other grounds
707 F.2d 404 (9th Cir. 1983); Mathes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1990-483. A deduction is not allowed when the employee maintains
the home office purely for his convenience, comfort, or economy.
See Sharon v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 515, 523 (1976), affd. 591
F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1978).
The facts in this case clearly demonstrate that petitioner
did not maintain a home office as his principal place of business
or as a place of business for meeting with clients or customers
in the normal course of business. Additionally, petitioner
failed to establish that he was required to maintain an office
for the convenience of his employer. IBC did not require
petitioner to maintain a home office in order to perform his
duties. Petitioner testified that he used the home office as a
place to make telephone calls to IBC and load bread in his
personal vehicle. Since petitioner failed to come within the
exception of section 280A(c)(1), we sustain respondent’s
disallowance of the claimed deductions for home office space for
both 1996 and 1997.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011