- 10 -
We begin by applying these principles to petitioner’s “home
office”. Here it is clear that petitioner used this room for
personal purposes and that business use was secondary, if not
incidental. Indeed, the photograph of the room that petitioner
introduced at trial did not reveal any indicia of business use;
moreover, the main piece of furniture in the room was a folding
sofa that petitioner used as his bed on most nights. It is
equally clear that no portion of this room was used exclusively
for business purposes. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is
not entitled to any deduction in respect of his “home office”.
See Cook v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-378.
We turn now to petitioner’s “studio”. Here the situation is
different. Although there was some personal use of a portion of
this room, petitioner used a clearly defined portion thereof
exclusively as the principal place of business for his music
composition and violin teaching businesses, as well as a place of
business for the Pasadena Chinese School. Accordingly, we hold
that petitioner is entitled to a deduction equal to three-
quarters of the expense allocable to his “studio”. See Hewett v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-110.
B. Repayment of Principal on Loan From Providian Bank
During the year in issue, petitioner borrowed money from his
mother and aunt in order to pay down the outstanding balance on
his line of credit with Providian Bank. At trial, petitioner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011