|
Posted by removeps-groups@yahoo.com on June 24, 2008, 1:45 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Jun 24, 8:44 am, "removeps-gro...@yahoo.com" <removeps-
gro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Section 280A calls for exclusive use. But if that is not met, it
> should I think disallow the travel mileage allowed under section 162.
Sorry, I made a typo. I meant to say
Section 280A calls for exclusive use. But if that is not met, it
should NOT I think disallow the travel mileage allowed under section
162.
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Stuart Bronstein on June 24, 2008, 2:15 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> Sorry, I made a typo. I meant to say
>
> Section 280A calls for exclusive use. But if that is not met, it
> should NOT I think disallow the travel mileage allowed under
> section 162.
That's what I figured (ok, hoped) you meant. ;-)
Stu
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Dick Adams on June 24, 2008, 3:56 pm
Please log in for more thread options
> I'm not recalling the name of the case of the anesthesiologist
> whose work was done at hospitals, and her OIH was used for
> scheduling, recording notes, and financial records. Court
> allowed this and gave us the regularly and exclusively tests,
> to which IRS concurred.
The case is Soliman v. Commissioner and it was decided by
Willie & the Supremes by a vote of 8-1. Only Justice
Stevens desented.
Dick
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Stuart Bronstein on June 25, 2008, 8:16 am
Please log in for more thread options rdadams@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
>
>> I'm not recalling the name of the case of the anesthesiologist
>> whose work was done at hospitals, and her OIH was used for
>> scheduling, recording notes, and financial records. Court
>> allowed this and gave us the regularly and exclusively tests,
>> to which IRS concurred.
>
> The case is Soliman v. Commissioner and it was decided by
> Willie & the Supremes by a vote of 8-1. Only Justice
> Stevens desented.
Thanks for the cite. In Soliman the Supreme Court disallowed the
deduction, overruling both the tax court and the 4th Circuit. They
said,
"Under the Court of Appeals' test, a home office may qualify as the
principal place of business whenever the office is essential to the
taxpayer's business, no alternative office space is available, and the
taxpayer spends a substantial amount of time there. See id., at 54.
This approach ignores the question whether the home office is more
significant in the taxpayer's business than every other place of
business. The statute does not refer to the "principal office" of the
business. If it had used that phrase, the taxpayer's deduction claim
would turn on other considerations. The statute refers instead to the
"principal place" of business. It follows that the most important or
significant place for the business must be determined."
Stu
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
|
Posted by Dick Adams on June 25, 2008, 10:54 am
Please log in for more thread options What is most significant of Soliman v. Commissioner
is that the IRS chose go after Dr. Soliman because
he was the picture perfect example of a home office
deduction by someone who did not generate revenue
from his home office. This was in spite of the fact
that all of his scheduling and recording keeping was
done from his home office.
Dr. Soliman prevailed in the lower courts. But the
IRS took it to Willie & The Supremes because if there
was no home office deduction for Dr. Soliman, there
was no home office deduction for anyone who looked
like him and certainly not for anyone who didn't
look as good as he did.
This ended depreciation, apportionment of rent, travel,
etc. But you could still 1099 furniture and fixtures.
Dick
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Mileage deduction when the car was needed in order to do the job | February 21, 2007, 6:28 pm |
| Another Charity Mileage Question. | December 6, 2006, 2:04 am |
| Charitable deduction question | April 7, 2008, 1:59 am |
| A Charity Deduction Question | April 14, 2006, 4:23 am |
| Lodging deduction question | September 18, 2008, 8:02 pm |
| Charitible Clothng Deduction question | February 4, 2007, 2:05 am |
| professional training deduction question | February 12, 2007, 12:23 am |
| Travel Expenses deduction question | March 4, 2007, 9:28 pm |
| special dividend given as stocks | March 6, 2007, 6:03 am |
| Filing taxes first time. One deduction question. | April 9, 2007, 2:51 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap