Moskovit v. Commissioner, Docket No. 11524-80.
| Decision Date | 12 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 11524-80. |
| Parties | Leonard A. Moskovit and Harriet T. Moskovit v. Commissioner. |
| Court | U.S. Tax Court |
Leonard A. Moskovit and Harriet T. Moskovit, pro se, Sugar Loaf Star Rt. 1, Boulder, Colo. Debre P. Katz, for the respondent.
Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion
Respondent determined a $144 deficiency in petitioners' 1977 Federal income tax. The only issue for decision is whether petitioner Leonard A. Moskovit is entitled to a home office deduction under section 280A.1
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are found accordingly.
Leonard A. Moskovit (hereinafter petitioner) and Harriet T. Moskovit, resided in Boulder, Colorado, at the time they filed their petition in this case. Petitioners timely filed their 1977 joint Federal income tax return with the Internal Revenue Service Center, Ogden, Utah.
During 1977, petitioner was employed by the University of Colorado (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the University), Boulder, Colorado, as a full professor in the English department. During such year, petitioner was required by the University to teach classes and to maintain a minimum of three office hours per week to assist students. Pursuant to this teaching requirement, petitioner taught two English courses during the spring semester of 1977 and three such courses during the fall semester of that year. Each of the courses which petitioner taught at the University met a total of three hours per week.
During 1977, petitioner was required to attend various University committee meetings,2 and staff meetings held by the English department. All of these meetings were held at the University. Petitioner's position at the University also required him to prepare and grade exams, develop new curricula, and research and publish scholarly articles.
The University provided petitioner with a private office, located on campus, which contained, among other things, at least two desks, chairs, bookshelves, filing cabinets, and a telephone. The size of such office was 9 feet x 14 feet, and petitioner had access to it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The telephone which petitioner had in his University office, allowed him to make outgoing calls as well as receive incoming calls. The English department at the University had a secretarial staff which was available to its faculty. The University also provided petitioner with a mailbox at the English department, as well as University stationery which showed the University as his mailing address. As a member of the University's faculty, petitioner had access to the University library, where he could check out books and obtain books from other campuses of the University through interlibrary loan services.
Petitioner and his wife lived in two homes during 1977. They occupied one of these homes from January through May of 1977, at which time they moved to another home for the remainder of the year. In both of these homes petitioner maintained an office which he used to do research in Eighteenth Century English Literature, and to prepare lessons for his classes. Petitioner's home office3 contained a desk, chairs, bookshelves, approximately 2,700 books, and a typewriter.
Petitioner did not maintain a separate phone number for work-related matters at either of his residences during 1977. Petitioner did practically all of his scholarly research and course preparations in his home office because his books were there and, as compared to his University office, it was a cooler place to work during the summer months and there were fewer interruptions.
During 1977, petitioner spent approximately 40 hours each week in his home office on research and class preparations, and he spent approximately 15 hours each week at the University teaching classes, advising students, and attending meetings.
At all relevant times herein, the University did not require the members of its faculty to maintain an office in their respective homes. The salaries paid by the University to the faculty members were not based on whether a professor maintained a home office.
During 1977, the official University policy with respect to employment, tenure, promotion recommendations, and salary increases took account of a professor's teaching ability, research work, and community service; for such purposes teaching and research were regarded as equally important and were given more weight than community service.
On petitioner's 1977 joint Federal income tax return, he claimed a $429.86 deduction for expenses attributable to his home office. In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed this deduction.
OpinionWe must determine whether section 280A prohibits petitioner from obtaining a home office deduction in 1977.
Section 280A(a) sets forth the general rule that no deduction shall be allowed "with respect to the use of a dwelling unit which is used by the taxpayer during the taxable year as a residence." An exception to this general rule of nondeductibility is set forth in section 280A(c)(1) which states:
To continue reading
Request your trial