- 2 -
is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not
be cited as authority.
Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal
income taxes of $799 and $1,536, respectively, for 1997 and 1998.
After concessions by respondent, the issues for decision are:
(1) Whether, under section 280A(c), petitioners are entitled to
deductions for office expenses for the years at issue in
connection with the use of their home and two rental apartments
in their respective trade or business activities in excess of
amounts allowed by respondent, and (2) whether section 280A(c)(5)
is unconstitutional as applied to petitioners.2
Some of the facts were stipulated. Those facts, with the
annexed exhibits, are so found and are made part hereof.
Petitioners’ legal residence at the time the petition was filed
was San Luis Obispo, California.
Petitioners were married during the years at issue. From
January through August 1997, they resided at a Vista Loma address
in Rancho Mirage, California. In August 1997, petitioners moved
from the Vista Loma address to a Deepak Street address in Palm
Springs, California. Petitioners resided at the Deepak address
2 At trial, respondent conceded the deductibility of a
$376 tuxedo rental expense and a $625 furniture expense for 1997.
Petitioners conceded a foreign royalties issue for 1997. Another
adjustment involving taxable Social Security benefits is a
computational adjustment.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011