- 13 -
part of the allocation because it was not available for use at
the time of execution of the lease. The parties disagree whether
to allocate the pool to Mr. Cutts for personal use so that ATV’s
payment of the pool repair expense is a dividend to Mr. Cutts.
Petitioners bear the burden of proving their entitlement to
business expense deductions. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering,
290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Section 7491(a) does not shift the
burden of proof to the Commissioner. Petitioners have neither
alleged section 7491 applies nor established their compliance
with the requirements of section 7491(a)(2)(A) and (B) to
substantiate items, maintain required records, and cooperate
fully with the Commissioner’s reasonable requests. See sec.
7491(a)(2); see also Weaver v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 273 (2003).
To determine petitioners’ income and allowable deductions
for use of Landmark Hall, we first allocate the use of Landmark
Hall between ATV’s business use and Mr. Cutts’s personal use.
Where a facility serves both business and personal purposes,
an allocation must be made by comparing the space and/or time
devoted to business use with total use. Intl. Artists, Ltd. v.
Commissioner, 55 T.C. 94 (1970); Eden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1987-101. The primary purpose criterion, governing the
deductibility of expenditures related to both business and
personal purposes, applies only to cases in which the secondary
purpose is merely incidental and relatively insignificant. Intl.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011