1980 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 120">*120
Liens were placed on petitioner's real estate with respect to support provided by the county to his minor son who was placed in a foster home. Petitioner claimed dependency exemptions for this son on the basis that he had provided over half of his son's support by way of these liens.
74 T.C. 525">*526 By letter dated August 8, 1978, respondent determined deficiencies in income taxes due from petitioner Robert T. Gestrich in the amount of $ 529.44 for his taxable year ended December 31, 1975, and $ 865 for his taxable year ended December 31, 1976. By a separate letter dated June 27, 1979, respondent determined a deficiency in income taxes due from petitioner in the amount of $ 112 for his taxable year ended December 31, 1977. Docket No. 11787-78, filed with respect to respondent's notice of deficiency dated August 8, 1978, and docket No. 12621-79, filed with respect to respondent's notice of deficiency dated June 27, 1979, were consolidated for trial, briefing, and opinion by order of 1980 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 120">*123 the Court dated October 15, 1979. The issues for decision herein are petitioner's entitlement to certain claimed dependency exemptions, office-in-home expense deductions, and travel expense deductions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts were stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioner Robert T. Gestrich filed timely cash basis Federal income tax returns for the taxable years in issue. While all returns were filed by petitioner jointly with his wife Evalyn McD. Gestrich, Mrs. Gestrich did not join in her husband's petitions to this Court. Only Mr. Gestrich is, therefore, before us. At the times he filed his petitions herein, petitioner resided in Valencia, Pa.
Petitioner has at least two children, James M. and Michael W. Gestrich. On October 25, 1974, when both boys were minors, public assistance from the Butler County Board of Assistance was authorized for the two boys. By a court order dated November 4, 1974, petitioner's son Michael was placed in a foster home, where he continued to receive assistance from the county.
By Pennsylvania State law, a separate lien in an amount equal to1980 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 120">*124 the yearly amount of assistance paid to or on behalf of Michael was placed on petitioner's real estate for each of the taxable years before us. Thus, a lien of $ 1,620 was placed on petitioner's real estate, including his home and a separate parcel 74 T.C. 525">*527 of land located in Jamestown, Pa., for each of the taxable years 1975, 1976, and 1977.
Michael remained in the foster home at least through 1977. After Michael was placed in the foster home, and throughout the taxable years before us, petitioner severed all ties with Michael and has not expended any cash, directly or indirectly, for Michael's support. Nonetheless, petitioner claimed dependency exemptions with respect to Michael for each of his taxable years 1975, 1976, and 1977.
Petitioner is a man of many interests. During the taxable years before us, petitioner's primary effort was directed toward being an author. Petitioner wrote scripts, articles, advertisements, and worked on a book. All of petitioner's works during the taxable years before us remained unfinished and/or unpublished through at least the time of trial. Although petitioner earned no income from any of his writing activities during the taxable years before1980 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 120">*125 us, he was attempting to get his book published. Petitioner also had other employment during the taxable years before us. In 1975, petitioner earned $ 1,857.15 from Applied Science Associates, Inc., as an advertising salesman. Similarly, petitioner earned $ 1,805.72 from Applied Science Associates, Inc., in 1976. In 1977, petitioner received $ 2,288.48 from Evans Products Co., where he worked as a sales manager and $ 487.50 from S.E.E.P. where he was employed to locate unusual water supplies.
OPINION
The first issue with which we must deal is petitioner's claim for dependency exemptions with respect to his son Michael. Michael was in a foster home starting in November of 1974. For each of petitioner's taxable years 1975, 1976, and 1977, a lien of $ 1,620 was placed on petitioner's real estate with respect to amounts paid on Michael's behalf. See
We think this reasoning equally applicable to the case before us. Section 152(a) states that the term "dependent" includes1980 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 120">*127 "individuals over half of whose support * * * was
Next we must decide the allowability of petitioner's claimed office-in-home deductions for the taxable years before us. The question of whether petitioner was in the trade or business of 74 T.C. 525">*529 being an author is one of fact.
We believe that petitioner was engaged in the trade or business of being an author during the taxable years before us. He clearly spent a significant portion of his time working on his book and other materials. While petitioner had been paid for his works in years past, he earned no income from the sale of1980 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 120">*130 his works during the taxable years before us. Nonetheless, petitioner was attempting to get his book published and was, therefore, holding himself out for the sale of goods or services. We conclude, on the record before us, that petitioner was in the trade or business of being an author during the taxable years before us.
Petitioner's expenses in maintaining an office in his home will be deductible if these expenses were incurred in petitioner's trade or business and are not personal. Sec. 262;
Petitioner's taxable years 1976 and 1977 require different considerations. Section 280A is applicable to these taxable years. Sec. 601(a), Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, 90 Stat. 1520, 1976-3 C.B. (Vol. 1) 1, 45, 48. Because petitioner earned no income from his trade or business of being an author during his taxable years 1976 and 1977, no office-in-home deduction is allowable to him for those taxable years. Sec. 280A(a), sec. 280A(c)(5). 3
1980 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 120">*132 Finally, we turn to petitioner's claimed travel expense deduction. Petitioner claimed a total of $ 2,620 in travel expenses for 1975. Part of this claim was, apparently, in respect of petitioner's travel to Corpus Christi, Tex., to research for his book. None of the amounts allocable to this trip are deductible because no substantiation therefor was provided. Sec. 274(d);
In 1976 and 1977, petitioner claimed deductions in the respective amounts of $ 2,420 and $ 2,113. These amounts were claimed with respect to business mileage, under the optional method ($ 1,950 and $ 1,751, respectively), and parking and tolls ($ 470 and $ 362, respectively). During 1976 and 1977, petitioner worked for Evans Products Co., Applied Science Associates, Inc., and S.E.E.P. either as a salesman or in some other capacity that 74 T.C. 525">*531 required local travel by car. Because these claims are with respect to local travel they need not pass through 1980 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 120">*133 the fire of section 274(d). From all the evidence, we are convinced that petitioner did incur some allowable business mileage deductions during these taxable years. On the other hand, we are at a complete loss to determine, given the record before us, how many of the miles petitioner claimed are actually allowable. We think it fair, therefore, to allow him 10 percent of his claimed mileage expense and parking and toll deductions for the years 1976 and 1977.
1. There is no indication in the record as to why the liens were not enforced against petitioner's Jamestown real estate. As this was not petitioner's "home" it would appear not to be exempt from execution under
2. Even if we were to ignore this fact, petitioner would fail because he did not establish the total amount spent for Michael's support during the taxable years before us. We cannot, therefore, tell what one-half of Michael's support would be.↩
3. During petitioner's taxable years 1976 and 1977, sec. 280A(c)(5) read as follows:
SEC. 280A(c)(5). Limitation on deductions. -- In the case of a use described in paragraph (1), (2) or (4), and in the case of a use described in paragraph (3) where the dwelling unit is used by the taxpayer during the taxable year as a residence, the deductions allowed under this chapter for the taxable year by reason of being attributed to such use shall not exceed the excess of -- (A) the gross income derived from such use for the taxable year, over (B) the deductions allocable to such use which are allowable under this chapter for the taxable year whether or not such unit (or portion thereof) was so used.
Because petitioner has failed the test of sec. 280A(c)(5), we do not reach the question of whether petitioner's home office was his principal place of business. Sec. 280A(c)(1).↩