DocketNumber： Docket No. 4230-80.
Citation Numbers： 42 T.C.M. 205, 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439, 1981 T.C. Memo. 319
Filed Date： 6/22/1981
Status： Non-Precedential
Modified Date： 11/21/2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
TANNENWALD,
This case was submitted fully stipulated pursuant to
Petitioners filed their joint Federal income tax return for the year in dispute with the Director of the Atlanta Service Center at Chamblee, Georgia. At the time they filed their petition in this case, petitioners resided in Atlanta, Georgia. Because the issue remaining for decision involves circumstancs concerning petitioner William A. Sessions alone, he will be referred to as "petitioner."
Petitioner is a professor of English employed by Georgia State University (GSU) located in Atlanta, Georgia. Petitioner is given a private office by GSU in one of its buildings consisting of approximately 77 square feet. Although petitioner may use*442 the office at any hour, GSU shuts down its temperature controlling devices shortly before 10:00 p.m. weekdays, that being the end of class time. Petitioner's office is neither cooled nor heated during the weekends.
Petitioner is expected byGSU to pursue scholarly activities including the writing of books or articles. Petitioner in fact has written both books and articles, and for some of them he has received compensation from persons other than GSU. In the taxable year before us, petitioner received $ 0.22 in royalties for his commercial writings.
Petitioner's scholarly writings improve his standing in his profession and increase the esteem in which he is held by GSU administrators. Petitioner's merit raise of approximately 7 percent given him by GSU during the year in dispute reflected the GSU English Department chairperson's belief in petitioner's "continuing productivity as a teacher and a scholar." Much of petitioner's research and writing during that year was done in a room in petitioner's home.
Respondent does not dispute that petitioner had an office in his home during the taxable year but does contest petitioner's right to deduct any expenses relating thereto. *443 The general rule is that "no deduction * * * shall be allowed with respect to the use of a dwelling unit which is used by the taxpayer * * * as a residence." Section 280A(a). 2 Certain exceptions are provided, however, and petitioner contends that he comes within the terms of section 280A(c)(1)(A) which excludes from the general rule those deductions "allocable to a portion of the dwelling unit which is exclusively used on a regular basis * * * as the taxpayer's principal place of business."
Petitioner contends that he has two distinct occupations, each enjoying its own principal place of business. Petitioner's primary trade or business is that of university professor, and his duties in connection therewith are principally carried out in his GSU office. Such being the case, petitioner is not entitled to claim his home office as his principal place of
Subsection (c)(5) provides that, even if a taxpayer comes within the protection of subsection (c)(1)(A), "the deductions allowed * * * by reason of being attributed to [home office] use shall not exceed the excess of (A) the gross income derived from such use * * * over (B) the deductions allocable to such use which are allowable * * * whether or not such [home office] was so used."
In the instant case, the parties agree that petitioner's royalties during the taxable year in issue amounted to $ 0.22. Petitioner contends that most, if not all, of the merit raise which he received from GSU should be deemed gross income from his research-and-writing trade or business. That contention, however, has an obvious built-in contradiction.
Petitioner's salary from GSU (of which the merit raise was a part) was for being a member of the faculty. It may*445 well be that a meritorious part of being a professor is scholarly writing, but we are hard pressed to see how that fact transmutes his salary into something else -- a raise received for meritorious performance
In view of the foregoing, even if petitioner could be considered as having two separate trades or businesses, his home office deductions would be at most $ 0.22 less the amount of petitioner's deductions allocable to the home office but allowable without regard to its business use. The burden of proof is upon petitioner,
1. Many of the exhibits are statements by third parties and, under normal circumstances, would constitute inadmissible hearsay evidence. However, respondent has stipulated to these exhibits and neither at the time the case was submitted nor on brief offered any objections to the use of their contents as evidence of the truth asserted therein.↩
2. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and in effect during the year in issue.↩
3. One item in the Notice of Deficiency was computed without rounding to whole dollars. This item was the investment tax credit for certain depreciable property allowed by sections 38 and 46. Because respondent's computation of this credit worked to petitioner's advantage (that is, petitioner was better off without rounding), we do not decide whether respondent erred in failing to round. Cf. section 301.6102-1(b)(3), Rpoc & Admin. Regs.↩