- 8 -
Discussion4
A. Home Office Deduction
Petitioner contends that he is entitled to a deduction for
an office in the home because his “home office” and “studio” were
used for business purposes. Respondent contends that petitioner
is not entitled to this deduction because neither petitioner’s
“home office” nor his “studio” was used exclusively for business
purposes. Respondent also contends that 75 South Meridith Avenue
was not the principal place of business for the Pasadena Chinese
School.5
Section 162(a) allows as a deduction all ordinary and
necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in
carrying on a trade or business. However, in the case of
expenses paid or incurred in connection with the business use of
a home, section 280A serves to restrict the deductibility rule of
section 162(a). Thus, section 280A(a) generally provides that no
deduction otherwise allowable shall be allowed with respect to
the business use of a taxpayer’s residence.
4 We decide the issues in this case without regard to the
burden of proof. Accordingly, we need not decide whether the
general rule of sec. 7491(a)(1) is applicable in this case. See
Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438 (2001).
5 Respondent does not contend that the principal place of
business for either petitioner’s music composition business or
petitioner’s violin teaching business is not at 75 South Meridith
Avenue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011