                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-53



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               ROBERT IRWIN SOLOMON, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 7700-99S.                    Filed April 11, 2001.


     Robert Irwin Solomon, pro se.

     Dustin M. Starbuck, for respondent.


     POWELL, Special Trial Judge:    This case was heard pursuant

to the provisions of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code

in effect at the time the petition was filed.    The decision to be

entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion

should not be cited as authority.




1
   Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are
to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.
                               - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency of $4,060 for

petitioner’s 1995 Federal income tax.    The issue before the Court

is whether expenses incurred by petitioner in purchasing a

tractor and a fuel tank are deductible under section 179.

Petitioner resided in Williamsburg, Virginia, at the time the

petition was filed.

     Petitioner is a full-time practicing neurologist with

medical offices in Williamsburg and Newport News, Virginia.

Petitioner purchased 49 acres of land in 1986.   Petitioner’s

putative farming activity is conducted on 6 acres.   Petitioner

cultivated the 6 acres for hay and, during 1995, rented the land

for $150 to a farmer who harvested the hay.   The remaining

acreage consisted of 39 acres of forest, 2 acres of open land,

and 2 acres associated with a house that was petitioner’s

residence during 1995.

     Petitioner maintained the remainder of the property.     In

1995, petitioner purchased a tractor for $11,900 and a 280-gallon

fuel tank.   Petitioner elected to “expense” these items under

section 179.   Respondent determined that under section 183

petitioner was not engaged in his farming activity for profit,

and, therefore, disallowed the deduction.

     We do not believe that it is necessary to engage in an

extended exegesis on the agricultural economics of petitioner’s

farming activity to decide this issue.   Relevant here, section
                                 - 3 -

179 property, by definition, means “tangible property * * * which

is acquired * * * for use in the active conduct of a trade or

business.”   Sec. 179(d)(1).    Whether or not we view petitioner’s

farming activity as a trade or business entered into for profit,

petitioner’s tractor and fuel tank were not used in that trade or

business.

     Petitioner testified that he used the tractor to cut the

perimeter of the property.     The perimeter of the property had

nothing to do with the farming activity.     The cutting of the

perimeter was for aesthetic, personal reasons, and, whether it

was cut or not, had no bearing on the farming activity.

“It is a fundamental policy of Federal income tax law that a

taxpayer should not be entitled to a deduction for ‘personal’

expenses, such as the ordinary expenses of everyday living.”

Dobra v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 339, 348 (1998); see sec. 262(a).

It is clear that only the 6 acres rented out were used in

petitioner’s farming activity.     Furthermore, it is clear that the

tractor and related fuel tank were purchased to maintain the

remaining cleared acreage that was kept fallow.     It is obvious

that this fallow land was nothing more than curtilage, maintained

purely for petitioner’s personal enjoyment.     Therefore, we find

that the expenses of purchasing the tractor and fuel tank were

personal expenses and are not deductible.
                             - 4 -

    Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

                                          Decision will be entered

                                     for respondent.
