- 6 -
Also in the notice of deficiency, respondent treated the
$3,450 spent by petitioner Michael H. Visin for computer
equipment and software for his business as a capital expenditure
and allowed depreciation thereon.
Petitioners do not contest respondent’s computation of the
limitation on deductions under section 280A(c)(5). Rather,
petitioners contend that section 280A does not apply to renters
of business property and that, therefore, the limitation on
deductions under section 280A(c)(5) does not apply to their case.
Rather, petitioners contend that section 162(a)(3) authorizes the
deductions in issue.
Petitioners also contend that they are entitled to expense,
pursuant to section 179, the $3,450 spent by petitioner Michael
H. Visin for computer equipment and software for use in his
business.
OPINION
We decide the issues in this case without regard to the
burden of proof. Accordingly, there is no reason to decide
whether section 7491(a) serves to shift the burden of proof from
petitioners to respondent. See generally Rule 142(a); INDOPCO,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v. Helvering,
290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
A. Deduction for Business Use of Home
Section 162(a)(3) allows a deduction for:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011