- 33 -
such dwelling unit”. Sec. 280A(f)(1)(A). No portion of
petitioners’ dwelling was used exclusively for business, and the
record is devoid of any showing of business use of the home of
either son. Consequently, no deduction for landscaping
attributable to these properties is allowable.
With respect to the corporate premises, landscaping and
maintenance costs would generally be deductible under section
162. It is further undisputed that Mayor and KareMor incurred
such expenses for the 24th Street property. The difficulty
arises in that the record provides no link between the business
premises and the particular payments reflected in the general
ledgers and invoices beyond what has already been allowed or
conceded by respondent. Moreover, the evidence is not sufficient
to permit any reasonable estimate or allocation under the
principles of Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d at 543-544.
When questioned at trial, Mr. Deihl and Mr. Hartmann
attributed 70 percent of the landscaping costs to the corporate
property and 30 percent to the residential properties. However,
in the December 31, 1998, general ledgers for Mayor and KareMor,
a 60-percent business versus 40-percent personal allocation was
used for the adjusting journal entries. No attempt has been made
to explain the change in position, but the shift does suggest a
degree of arbitrariness in the figures.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011