Joseph A. and Sari F. Deihl - Page 26

                                       - 26 -                                         
                    unit which is exclusively used on a regular                       
                    basis--                                                           
                              (A) as the principal place of business for              
                         any trade or business of the taxpayer,                       
                              (B) as a place of business which is used                
                         by patients, clients, or customers in meeting                
                         or dealing with the taxpayer in the normal                   
                         course of his trade or business, or                          
                              (C) in the case of a separate structure                 
                         which is not attached to the dwelling unit,                  
                         in connection with the taxpayer’s trade or                   
                         business.                                                    
                    In the case of an employee, the preceding sentence                
                    shall apply only if the exclusive use referred to                 
                    in the preceding sentence is for the convenience                  
                    of his employer.                                                  
                         (2) Certain storage use.-- * * *                             
                         (3) Rental use.-- * * *                                      
               B.  Amortization of Residence Improvements                             
               The parties stipulated as follows:  “KareMor expended monies           
          for lavish improvements to PETITIONERS’ personal residence.                 
          Based upon those expenditures KareMor claimed amortized expenses.           
          RESPONDENT does not dispute the amounts claimed but disputes the            
          deductibility.”  Petitioners seek deductions of $313,576 for                
          1996, $549,028 for 1997, and $566,559 for 1998.                             
               Both petitioners and respondent devote extensive discussion            
          on brief to whether the expenditures by KareMor for improvements            
          satisfy the threshold business purpose criterion pertinent to               
          deductibility under either section 162 or 167.  Respondent argues           
          that the amounts were not expended for ordinary and necessary               





Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011