- 9 -
Petitioner claims that she conducted her Packs to Go activity
from an apartment in a subsidized low-income housing development
known as the Dulles Center Apartments. She claims she did not
live there, an assertion that respondent disputes. Petitioner’s
apartment was furnished with dishes, plants, a sofa, a loveseat,
two tables, and a coffee table.
Petitioner’s lease agreement provided that “the use of the
premises for any purpose other than as a private dwelling solely
for the use of the Resident” was not permitted. The lease made no
mention of petitioner’s Packs to Go activity. Moreover, for the
first year of the lease (from December of 1999 to December of
2000), petitioner’s nephew was a signatory to the lease.
Without deciding whether petitioner did or did not live
at the Dulles Center Apartments, and even if we were to accept
petitioner’s uncorroborated assertions that she conducted her
Packs to Go activity from a low-income apartment unit in violation
of her lease agreement, we believe that such a highly unusual
arrangement is inconsistent with conducting a commercial
enterprise in a businesslike manner.
Petitioner did not keep reliable books and records for her
Packs to Go activity. Only one signed contract between petitioner
and a putative client was introduced into evidence. The receipts
that petitioner produced in support of her claims for various
business deductions were inconsistent with or contradictory of her
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008