NO HEADLINE IS AVAILABLE

Allan T. Quello, 401 E. Lake Street, Wayzata, Minnesota 55301, for plaintiffs. Mary Frances Clark, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. 20530, Donald F. Paar, Assistant United States Attorney, for defendant.

The Commissioner disallowed the following:

 Rental Loss            $3,464.88

The motion in limine as to the bad debt deduction will be granted. This Court lacks jurisdiction.

Trial was had to the Court on July 19, 1982. Plaintiff John Loughlin and his accountant, Donald O'Neill, testified. The Court has considered the testimony and exhibits and the statements and memoranda of counsel.

Plaintiffs have the burden of showing that the Commissioner's determination is incorrect. Hamm v. CIR 325 F.2d 934, 937 (8th Cir. 1963), cert. den. 377 U. S. 993 (1924).

2. Paintiffs claim that the motorhome is not a dwelling unit because it is used for locomotion. Section 280A(f)(1)(A) defines a dwelling unit to include a house, apartment, condominium, mobile home, boat or similar property. The motorhome at issue here is clearly a mobile home within the statute. Section 280A(c)(3) permits the deduction of expenses attributable to the rental of a dwelling unit. Such expenses are, however, deductible only to an amount equal to the gross income from the property. Section 280A(c)(5). Plaintiffs were permitted by the Commissioner to deduct an amount equal to the rental income from the property. The Commissioner was correct.

3. The Commissioner allowed deductions for travel expenses which were substantiated, but disallowed $6.00 per day ($879.00) for incidentals (tips and taxis to restaurants) which were not substantiated or supported in any way. The Commissioner correctly disallowed the deduction. Section 274 of the Internal Revenue Code and the Regulations require adequate records.

4. Plaintiffs deducted one-half of the basic telephone rate at his home as a business expense. Mr. Loughlin testified that his employer required him to have a telephone in his home. He testified also that if he retired the next day that he would have a telephone in his home. Since plaintiffs would have had a telephone (like most taxpayers) regardless of their employment, plaintiffs are not entitled to the claimed deduction.

5. Plaintiffs claim a home office deduction for a part of a large area adjoining the kitchen which was occasionally used by Mr. Loughlin to keep up with employment related matters. Expenses are deductible (Section 220A(c)(1)(A)) where the office in the home constitutes the taxpayer's principal place of business. Mr. Loughlin's occupation is that of an airline pilot. His principal place of business is not his home but rather the airport, cockpit, or the airline headquarters. Using the concept of the "focal point" of the taxpayer's business activities to determine the principal place of the business it is clear that the focal point of Mr. Loughlin's business is not the area adjoining the kitchen. The Commissioner was correct in his disallowance of the claimed deduction.