- 15 -
there must be sufficient evidence on which to base such an
estimate. Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 743 (1985).
Considering the evidence as a whole, the Court finds that
petitioners paid the following amounts with respect to utilities
expenses. For 1997, the Court finds as a utilities expense $700
for the combined usage of the Vista Loma and Deepak spaces. For
1998, the Court finds as utilities expenses $300 for the Deepak
apartment, $900 for the North Indian Avenue apartment, and $300
for the Ravenspur apartment. As respondent made no issue of the
rents paid, the Court finds that petitioners paid rent expenses
in the amounts deducted on their 1997 and 1998 returns. For
1998, the Court also finds that petitioners paid furnishings
expenses of $1,371 with respect to the North Indian Avenue and
Ravenspur apartments, as petitioners provided sufficient evidence
to substantiate these expenditures.
Finally, the Court addresses the gross income provisions of
section 280A(c)(5). Even if the requirements of section
280A(c)(1) are met, the deductions allowed are limited by section
280A(c)(5). That section provides:
Sec. 280A(c)(5). Limitation on deductions.-–In the
case of a use described in paragraph (1), (2), or (4), and
in the case of a use described in paragraph (3) where the
dwelling unit is used by the taxpayer during the taxable
year as a residence, the deductions allowed under this
chapter for the taxable year by reason of being attributed
to such use shall not exceed the excess of-–
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