Irwin and Jeannine Radnitz - Page 18




                                       - 17 -                                         

          to such business use.  Scott v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 683, 692              
          (1985).  Petitioners have already been allowed home office                  
          expense deductions to the extent of Mr. Radnitz’s income from               
          residuals in both 1997 and 1998.  His pension income, as                    
          respondent points out, is in the nature of deferred compensation            
          and therefore is not considered income attributable to the use of           
          those spaces.  Estate of Sussman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                
          1978-344 n.3 (pension income was not from taxpayer’s trade or               
          business, but rather was “merely deferred compensation for his              
          earlier services and * * * properly allocable to * * * [his]                
          active employment prior to retirement”).  Moreover, since                   
          petitioners rented the Vista Loma and Deepak apartments, there do           
          not appear to be any deductions otherwise allowable with respect            
          to them, such as mortgage interest or real property taxes.  Green           
          v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-599 n.6.  As a result, under               
          section 280A(c)(5), petitioners are not entitled to greater home            
          office deductions for the Vista Loma and Deepak apartments than             
          the amounts respondent has already allowed.                                 
               Petitioners raised a constitutional issue with respect to              
          section 280A(c)(5), which the Court next addresses.   Petitioners           
          objected to the application of the income limitation of section             
          280A(c)(5) to them based on equal protection and fairness                   
          principles.  They argued that they may never be able to deduct              
          the expenses of Mr. Radnitz’s home office because he may not                






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