- 6 -
The record clearly indicates petitioner did not carry on a
computer software business in 2003. Petitioner did not produce
documentation showing he operated a computer software business in
2003. Although on his 2003 Schedule C he reported gross receipts
of $17,149 from his business, the $17,149 was paid for work
unrelated to the purported software business.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds petitioner did
not carry on a trade or business as required under section 162.
Therefore, he is not entitled to deduct the car and truck expense
of $3,977 or the labor expense of $7,070. See McKelvey v.
Commissioner, supra; Reems v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-253;
Estate of Miller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-515, affd.
without published opinion 983 F.2d 232 (5th Cir. 1993).
Petitioner also claimed a depreciation deduction under
section 167 of $3,479 for the use of his Ford Taurus in the
computer software business. For a taxpayer to depreciate
property under section 167, the property must be used in a trade
or business or held for the production of income. Porreca v.
Commissioner, 86 T.C. 821, 843 (1986); Flowers v. Commissioner,
80 T.C. 914, 931-932 (1983). The trade or business requirements
under section 167 are the same as those under section 162.
Lemmen v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1326, 1340 n.16 (1981); Miller v.
Commissioner, supra. Petitioner was not engaged in a trade or
business for purposes of section 162 in 2003. Accordingly, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007