- 12 -
The Court finds that Mr. Radnitz’s use of home offices at
the Vista Loma and Deepak residences satisfies the tests of
section 280A(c)(1). First, petitioners met the exclusive use
test with respect to the office portions of their personal
residences. Mr. Radnitz allowed no personal use of the space
that was used in their home as his office. Second, the offices
were used on a regular basis, and Mr. Radnitz worked full time as
a writer. Third, the offices represented Mr. Radnitz’s principal
place of business. During 1997 and half of 1998, the home space
was the only office space he used.
Since Mr. Radnitz was an employee, section 280A further
requires that the home office space must be for the convenience
of the employer. That test has been met. Mr. Radnitz was a
speculative writer who was on his own in creating the work that
he sold or later hoped to sell. He was never provided with
office space by his employers. In such a situation, the home or
self-funded office can only be said to be for the employer’s
convenience. See Soliman v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 20 (1990),
affd. 935 F.2d 52 (1991), revd. on other grounds 506 U.S. 168
(1993); cf. Gestrich v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 525 (1980), affd.
without published opinion 681 F.2d 805 (3d Cir. 1982). On this
record, the Court holds that petitioners are allowed deductions
for their rent and utilities expenses for the use of the home
offices at their Vista Loma and Deepak residences to the extent
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