- 2 - the pay phones is not an eligible access expenditure. Therefore, P is not entitled to claim the disabled access credit under sec. 44, I.R.C., for his investment in the pay phones in 2001. Edward R. Arevalo, pro se. Catherine S. Tyson, for respondent. OPINION COHEN, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,999 in petitioner’s Federal income tax for 2001 that was attributable to respondent’s disallowance of depreciation deductions and tax credits claimed by petitioner with respect to two public pay telephones (pay phones). In an amendment to answer, respondent asserted an increased deficiency of $30,247 and a penalty of $6,049 under section 6662 as a result of petitioner’s failure to report income from dividends and stock sales. After concessions by the parties, the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to claim a deduction for depreciation under section 167 with respect to the pay phones in 2001 and (2) whether petitioner is entitled to claim a tax credit under section 44 for his investment in the pay phones in 2001. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, andPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011