- 2 - The issues remaining for decision1 are:2 (1) Did petitioner materially participate in a certain business within the meaning of section 469(h)(1)?3 We hold that he did not. (2) Is petitioner entitled to deduct under section 212 certain claimed expenses with respect to a rental property that he owned? We hold that he is not. FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Redwood City, California. Petitioner was a full-time employee of Scimed/Boston Scientific Corporation (Scimed), a medical device corporation, working 10 to 12 hours a day in that company’s sales operations. The sales territory of petitioner, who resided in Foster City, California (Foster City), included California, Nevada, and Hawaii. Petitioner’s employment with Scimed required him to travel an aggregate of about one week each month. 1Computational issues also remain, resolution of which flows automatically from our resolution of the issues that we address herein. 2Although not expressly stated except where needed for clarity, our statement of issues, Findings of Fact, and Opinion pertain to the year at issue unless otherwise indicated. 3All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.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