Joe D. and Maura F. White - Page 7




                                        - 6 -                                         

          petitioner worked for the three enterprises previously discussed.           
          Between assignments, he was reached at home to attend to one or             
          more of the projects that required his services; however, he also           
          received assignments while he was at a work site.                           
               Section 162(a) allows a taxpayer to deduct all ordinary and            
          necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or               
          business.  Under section 280A, however, deductions associated               
          with a home office are generally disallowed unless the home                 
          office is used exclusively and regularly as the principal place             
          of business of the taxpayer.  Petitioner contends his home was              
          his principal place of business because he was required to                  
          perform his services at three different locations.  He alleges              
          that, because he received his orders and directions for his                 
          services at his home, his home was, therefore, the focal point of           
          his activity.  In addition, petitioner stored equipment used in             
          his activity at his home.2                                                  
               Section 280A(a) provides that no deduction otherwise                   
          allowable shall be allowed with respect to the use of a dwelling            
          unit which is used by the taxpayer during the taxable year as a             
          residence.  Section 280A(c), however, provides an exception if a            
          portion of the residence is exclusively used on a regular basis:            

               2    Sec. 7491, in certain instances, places the burden of             
          proof upon the Commissioner.  The parties have not alleged that             
          sec. 7491 would be applicable in this case.  The Court,                     
          nonetheless, decides this case without regard to the burden of              
          proof.                                                                      




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011