Legal Opinion · Dissent

David J. And Anne M. Weissman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided December 20, 1984No. 1518, Docket 84-4031Published

1DissentKelleher, District Judge

The factual findings of the Tax Court fully support the conclusion that Professor Weissman failed to establish his entitlement to a deduction of his home office expenses. I agree with the Tax Court and the Commissioner that appellant failed to prove the requirements of Section 280A of the Code, 26 U.S.C. (1982), that his home office was the focal point of his business activities. Accordingly, I dissent.

There is no denying that the facilities provided to Weissman by City College were of a humble nature, inadequately serving some of his needs as a researcher-writer. Yet Weissman’s…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Commissioner v. DubersteinSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  2. Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Md.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Ernest Drucker, Patricia Rogers, Philip Cherry and Ruth Cherry, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
  4. Moskovit v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1982
  5. Storzer v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1982

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API