Drucker v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioner was employed as a concert musician with the Metropolitan Opera. The Opera did not provide its concert musicians with an area to use for individual practice but expected them to practice on an individual basis off the premises. Held, under sec. 280A, I.R.C. 1954, a room in petitioner's residence where he spent a part of his workday practicing is not his principal place of business, and he is not entitled to a deduction for the cost of maintaining the room.
1Opinion of the Court
Whitaker, Judge:
Respondent determined a deficiency of $321 in petitioner’s Federal income tax for 1976 and $265 for 1977. After concessions by the parties, the sole issue remaining for our decision is whether petitioner is entitled to a home office deduction under section 280A, I.R.C. 1954.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.
Ernest Drucker (petitioner) resided in New York, N.Y., at the time he filed his petition herein. His Federal income tax returns for 1976…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Primuth v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1970
- Sharon v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- Joel A. Sharon and Ann L. Sharon v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
- Curphey v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
- Baie v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1980
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Ernest Drucker, Patricia Rogers, Philip Cherry and Ruth Cherry, Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
- Hamacher v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1990
- Frankel v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1984
- Soliman v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1990
- Weissman v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1983
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.