- 2 -
other court, and the opinion shall not be treated as precedent
for any other case.
Respondent determined a $3,360 deficiency in petitioners’
Federal income tax for 2003. After concessions,2 we are asked to
decide whether petitioners are entitled to deductions for various
expenses. We find that petitioners are entitled to deduct some
of the expenses they claimed on their returns.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
Petitioners resided in Minneapolis, Minnesota, at the time they
filed the petition.
Mr. Soholt’s Business Activities
Petitioner Mr. Soholt was a financial adviser and retirement
planner for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) in
2003. He provided financial advisory services and products to
various clients and groups. Mr. Soholt used his car to meet with
clients and prospective clients at locations convenient to them.
Sometimes he would take clients or prospective clients out for
coffee or a light meal or snack.
Mr. Soholt worked from a home office set up in the basement
that constituted approximately 18 percent of petitioners’ home
2Petitioners concede that they are not entitled to deduct a
portion of their personal property taxes and that they are not
entitled to deduct expenses for professional publications.
Respondent concedes that petitioners are entitled to deduct their
expenses for continuing education and licensing.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007