                          T.C. Memo. 1998-366



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



      PETER C. LAFAVOR AND SUZANNE LAFAVOR, Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 15158-95.                   Filed October 8, 1998.



     Peter C. LaFavor and Suzanne LaFavor, pro sese.

     Tracy A. Martinez, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     SWIFT, Judge:   Respondent determined deficiencies of $7,175

and $8,072 in petitioners’ joint Federal income taxes for 1991

and 1992, respectively.

     Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and
                                 - 2 -


all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and

Procedure.    References to petitioner in the singular are to Peter

C. LaFavor.

     After settlement, the issue remaining for decision is

whether certain expenses qualify as deductible home office

expenses under section 280A.


                           FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

     During 1991 and 1992, petitioner traveled to Alaska and

Washington State and worked there as a self-employed commercial

fisherman.    When petitioner was not fishing in Alaska or

Washington State, he resided with his family in Afton, Minnesota,

where his family resided throughout the year.    Petitioner also

worked in Minnesota at miscellaneous jobs such as removing snow

and delivering packages.

     During 1991 and 1992, petitioner owned shares of stock in an

S corporation known as Triple L-F/V Bounty, Inc. (Triple).

Petitioner, his father, and his brother each owned one-third of

the shares of stock in Triple.    The only asset of Triple was a

fishing boat referred to as the Bounty that petitioner

occasionally used in his fishing business in Alaska and

Washington State.
                              - 3 -


     During 1991 and 1992, petitioner used one room in the

basement of petitioners' home to make phone calls to plan his

fishing trips and to negotiate fishing charters of the Bounty.

Petitioner used a shed on petitioners' property for storage of

petitioner's fishing gear and of records relating to the Bounty.

Petitioner also used a garage on petitioners' property to store a

family car that occasionally was used in petitioner's fishing

business.

     Petitioner did not maintain adequate records documenting his

activities in his fishing business.

     On petitioners' 1991 and 1992 joint Federal income tax

returns, petitioners claimed home office deductions of $2,226 and

$2,506, respectively, relating to the use of petitioners'

basement room, shed, and garage in petitioner's fishing business.

In calculating the amount of claimed home office deductions,

petitioners treated 100 percent of the basement room and shed and

30 percent of the garage as used for business purposes.

     On audit for 1991 and 1992, respondent disallowed in full

petitioners' claimed home office deductions.


                            OPINION

     Section 162 generally allows a deduction for ordinary and

necessary expenses incurred in carrying on a trade or business.

Under section 280A(c)(1)(A), ordinary business expenses relating
                                - 4 -


to use of any portion of a taxpayer's home are not allowable

unless the taxpayer establishes that the portion of the

taxpayer's home to which the expenses relate was used exclusively

and on a regular basis as the principal place of the taxpayer's

trade or business.    Hamacher v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 348, 353

(1990).    Occasional use of a portion of a taxpayer's home for

business purposes will not satisfy the requirements of section

280A(c).    Anderson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-576.

      With regard to the principal-place-of-business

requirement, the Supreme Court in Commissioner v. Soliman, 506

U.S. 168, 174 (1993), explained that "principal" meant the most

important or significant place for business.    Whether the

principal-place-of-business requirement is satisfied turns on the

relative importance of the business activities performed in the

home and the time spent in the home conducting these activities.

Id. at 175.

     Petitioner argues that his various fishing activities in

petitioners' basement room, shed, and garage qualify under the

requirements of section 280A.    We disagree.

     The evidence does not establish that petitioner's use of the

basement room, the shed, and the garage separately or together

qualifies as the principal place of petitioner's fishing

business.
                                 - 5 -


     The principal place of petitioner's fishing business appears

to have been in Alaska and Washington State.       No revenue

producing activities were performed in petitioners' home.

Petitioners' basement room, the shed, and garage fail to qualify

as the principal place of petitioner's fishing business.

Arguably, petitioners' shed might qualify under the

separate-structure exception of section 280A(c)(1)(C).

Petitioner however, has not substantiated the portion of the

claimed home office deductions that might be allocable to the

shed.

     For the reasons stated, we conclude that petitioners are not

entitled to the claimed home office deductions under section 280A

relating to petitioner's fishing business.

     To reflect the foregoing,



                                         Decision will be entered

                                 under Rule 155.
