- 11 -
connection with what the legal expense arose, not what
consequences might have resulted from the taxpayer's claim. See
United States v. Gilmore, supra at 48; Patch v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1980-11.
It is the determination of the Court that the expense here
arose in connection with the management, conservation, or
maintenance of property held for use by petitioner as a personal
residence. Assuming without deciding that an ultimate
consequence of petitioner's litigation might have been the
recovery of taxable income, or the determination, collection, or
refund of a tax, the claim for which the expense arose was not in
connection with those activities. Petitioner was upset by what
he perceived to be the failure of the association to properly
manage, conserve, or maintain the condominium property where he
resided. The suit in State court asked for nullification of
governing documents of the condominium and the CC&Rs, a stop to
perceived overcharges for maintenance assessments and water and
sewer services, and a direction that the association properly
maintain the common area around petitioner's condominium unit.
For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that none
of the legal expenses for the State litigation were incurred in
connection with an activity described in section 212.
Although petitioner might be entitled to deduct legal
expenses incurred in connection with his former employment, he
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011