- 6 -
allowed on the basis of an approximation or the unsupported
testimony of the taxpayer. See, e.g., Murata v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1996-321; Golden v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-602.
Therefore, Mr. Brown’s unsupported testimony as to estimations is
not a basis on which we can allow a deduction for these
automobile expenses. Respondent’s disallowance of the remaining
amounts claimed for insurance, car and truck, and rent or lease
expenses relating to the 1997 Acura is sustained.
2. Home Office
Petitioners claimed a deduction of $1,800 for utilities for
the portion of their home used as Mr. Brown’s office for his law
practice. Generally, no deductions are allowed with respect to
the use of a dwelling unit which is used by the taxpayer as a
residence. Sec. 280A(a). A taxpayer may be excepted from this
general rule if the dwelling unit is exclusively used on a
regular basis “as the principal place of business for any trade
or business of the taxpayer”. Sec. 280A(c)(1)(A). Respondent
stipulated that Mr. Brown was “engaged in the practice of law in
the year 1998”.4
4 Respondent’s allowance of even a portion of Mr. Brown’s
claimed business expenses was an act of considerable kindness.
We question whether Mr. Brown was engaged in the trade or
business of practicing law. From the record and Mr. Brown’s own
testimony, it does not appear that he conducted his law practice
with continuity or regularity, or with the primary purpose of
making a profit. Sec. 162; see Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480
U.S. 23, 35 (1987); Antonides v. Commissioner, 893 F.2d 656, 659
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011