- 27 -
his home was the principal place of business for his aviation
activities.
Where a taxpayer’s business is conducted in part at the
taxpayer’s residence and in part at another location, there are
two primary considerations in determining whether the home office
qualifies as the taxpayer’s principal place of business: (1) The
relative importance of the functions or activities performed at
each business location, and (2) the time spent at each location.
See Commissioner v. Soliman, 506 U.S. 168, 175-177 (1993);
Strohmaier v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 106, 111-112 (1999).15
As a threshold matter, we are unpersuaded of the truth of
petitioner’s allegation that he had no office space at Great
Lakes available to him.16 For this reason alone, we question
whether petitioner’s home was his principal place of business.
15 Effective for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31,
1998, sec. 280A was amended so that the term “principal place of
business” now includes a place of business that the taxpayer uses
to perform administrative or management activities related to the
taxpayer’s trade or business if there is no other fixed location
of the trade or business where the taxpayer conducts substantial
administrative or management activities. Sec. 280A(c), as
amended by the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-34, sec.
932(a), 111 Stat. 788.
16 When applying for an aircraft dealer’s license,
petitioner represented to the Minn. Dept. of Transp. that he
leased from Great Lakes 150 sq. ft. of office space at the Anoka
airport to use “as an operating base” for his aircraft dealer
business. The issuance of an aircraft dealer’s license by the
Minn. Dept. of Transp. to petitioner was based in part upon this
representation. Petitioner now claims that he had no office
space at Great Lakes and was forced to use his home to conduct
business activities. We find petitioner’s convenient change of
story troubling.
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011