- 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, and
Page: 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