Abstract
More than four years have passed since the original enactment of I.R.C. § 280A. This short span in the history of the federal income tax is long enough to raise serious questions about the wisdom of the provision. In the home office area, it has done little to stem the flow of litigation. The issues are now statutory ones concerning the meaning of terms such as "principal place of business" and "exclusive" use, terms representing concepts that have only tangential relevance to whether an expense plays a role in generating income. The old "ordinary and necessary" standard was far more relevant, even if it led to hard cases and a somewhat smaller revenue yield from some categories of relatively highly taxed taxpayers. The Treasury Department's overreaching in the § 280A standards is best exemplified by a 1979 private ruling to the effect that disallowance of a home office expense under I.R.C. § 280A(a) does not negate the fact that the home office was used for business purposes when the home is subsequently sold: any gain on the portion of the home used for business purposes may not be rolled over taxfree under I.R.C. § 1034 on the purchase of a new principal residence.
Recommended Citation
Lang, Michael B.
(1981)
"When a House Is Not Entirely a Home:
Deductions Under Internal Revenue
Code § 280A for Home Offices,
Vacation Homes, Etc.,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1981:
No.
2, Article 2.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1981/iss2/2