- 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