- 16 -
In order for a taxpayer to establish use on a “regular”
basis, the business use must be more than occasional or
incidental. Irwin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-490, affd.
without published opinion 131 F.3d 146 (9th Cir. 1997); Hefti v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-128. A taxpayer “exclusively” uses
a portion of his dwelling in a trade or business if the portion
in question is not used for other than business purposes. Irwin
v. Commissioner, supra; Hefti v. Commissioner, supra. The use of
a portion of a dwelling unit both for personal purposes and for
the carrying on of a trade or business does not meet the
exclusive use test. See Sengpiehl v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1998-23; Hefti v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner claimed deductions of $4,030 for home office
expenses paid in connection with Zomans Productions. Petitioner
provided a diagram of his apartment in which he designated one
room as a “studio area” and another as an “office” for his movie
production business. In order to access the living room, the
bedroom, or the bathroom, petitioner must go through one of the
designated areas. It is well established that the Court is not
required to accept a taxpayer’s self-serving testimony in the
absence of corroborating evidence. See Niedringhaus v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 219 (1992); Tokarski v. Commissioner,
87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). Other than petitioner’s testimony, there
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011