Opinion

Feldman v. Commissioner

  • 84 T.C. 1
  • 84 T.C. No. 1
  • 1985 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 137
Court
United States Tax Court
Filed
Jan 8, 1985
Status
Published
Author
Parker
On the bench
Cohen,Dawson,Fay,Sterrett,Goffe,Chabot,Nims,Korner,Shields,Swift,Jacobs,Gerber,Wright,Whitaker,Hamblen,Clapp,Nims,Chabot,Cohen,Jacobs,Gerber,Wright,Simpson,Wilbur,Simpson
Cited by
26 cases

adopting square footage method because it was “the more precise method and [thus] the most reasonable method available”

How later courts described this case

  • adopting square footage method because it was “the more precise method and [thus] the most reasonable method available”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Parker, J., dissenting: I join in Judge Simpson’s dissenting opinion but wish to make an additional observation. Section 280A(a) lays down a general rule of nondeductibility of expenses "with respect to the use of a dwelling unit which is used by the taxpayer during the taxable year as a residence.” Section 280A(c) then creates four exceptions to the general rule and these four exceptions should be narrowly construed. The effect of the majority opinion is to convert the rental use exception of section 280A(c)(3) into "the great override,” which would permit taxpayers to circumvent all of the carefully crafted limitations of the exception for business use (section 280A(c)(1)), the exception for storage use (section 280A(c)(2)), and the exception for day care services (section 280A(c)(4)). I do not believe the Congress intended, or the statute compels, such a perverse result.

Simpson, J., agrees with this dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.