- 2 -
After a concession by petitioners,1 the issues for decision
by the Court are as follows:
(1) Whether for each of the years in issue, petitioners’
deduction for the business use of their apartment is subject to
the limitation on deductions set forth in section 280A(c)(5).2
We hold that it is.
(2) Whether for 1998, petitioners are entitled to expense,
rather than depreciate, the cost of computer equipment and
software. We hold that they are not.
An adjustment to petitioners’ self-employed health insurance
deduction under section 162(l) is a mechanical matter, the
resolution of which is dependent on our disposition of the
disputed issues. See sec. 162(l)(2)(A).
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so
found. Petitioners resided in San Francisco, California, at the
time that the petition was filed with the Court.
During 1997 and 1998, the taxable years in issue, petitioner
Michael H. Visin was self-employed as an interior decorator and
1 At trial, petitioners did not contest, and are therefore
deemed to have conceded, an adjustment in the amount of $703 to
cost of goods sold for 1997.
2 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code as in effect for 1997 and 1998, the
taxable years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011