To write two different case briefs using "IRAC" method about one and half single page for each case.

Example of a Case Brief 111 ~

ACC 431-Case Brief

Case: Commissioner v. In Home Office Deduction, S.Ct. (1993)

Facts: During 1983, worked as an anesthesiologist at three Washington D.C. area hospitals where he spent approximately 30-35 hours per week. None of the hospitals provided an office. used a spare bedroom as an office and where he performed all clerical work pertaining to his practice. (Records, Billing, Correspondence, patient logs, medical journal reviews) He spent approximately 10-15 hours per week in the office. In 1983, he deducted a total of$1259 in home office expenses and depreciation. He claimed automobile expenses of$1,522 and depreciation on his vehicle of$ 2,236.

Procedural History: v. Commissioner, T.C. 20, 29 (1990)- Tax court concluded the home office was Soliman's principal place of business. Court allowed office and car expense with depreciation, but disallowed all other deductions claimed and found a tax liability.

v. Commissioner, F.2d 52 (4th Cir. 1991): IRS appealed the decision; however, tax court decision was affirmed.

Commissioner v. S. Ct. (1993): Court reversed lower court ruling and held that

Soliman's home was not his principal place of business and stressed focal point test.

Issue: Is entitled to the home office tax deduction by section 280A?

Rule(s): § 280A- Disallowance of certain expenses in connection with business use of home, rental of vacation homes, etc. unless his or her particular circumstances fit within an exception to the general rule of nondeductibility of expenses associated with a personal residence.

280A(c) (1) (A), permits the deduction ofhome office expenses ifa portion of the home is "exclusively used on a regular basis" as the principal place of business for any trade or business of the taxpayer. An employee must also show that the office is maintained "for the convenience of his employer."

Tax Court in 1980 adopted the "focal point test", which deems a taxpayer's principal place of business to be that location where income is generated and where goods and services are provided.

Application/Analysis: The focal point test was highly criticized and often denounced by circuit cq~s for placing undue emphasis on where income is generated.

" ' Lower courts did not compare the amount of time spent in the home office with time spent in other business locations, nor did they compare the relative importance of the activities conducted at each location.

Conclusion: The court reversed rulings and held that respondent taxpayer's home was not his principal place of business and appellate court failed to undertake a comparative analysis; principal place where met with patients and 30-35 hrs vs. 10-15 hrs.