Katia V. Popov; Peter Popov v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
246 F.3d 1190 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To determine a taxpayer's 'principal place of business' for a home office deduction, courts analyze the relative importance of the activities performed at each location and the amount of time spent at each. When the 'relative importance' test is inconclusive, the amount of time spent at each location becomes the decisive factor.
Facts:
- Katia Popov was a professional violinist who performed with the Los Angeles Chamber Orchestra, the Long Beach Symphony, and for various motion picture studios.
- In 1993, she worked for twenty-four different contractors and recorded music in thirty-eight separate locations.
- None of her twenty-six employers provided her with a space to practice her violin.
- Popov lived in a one-bedroom apartment with her husband and daughter.
- She used the apartment's living room exclusively as a space to practice the violin for four to five hours each day.
- The living room contained only shelves with recording equipment, a small table, a bureau for sheet music, and a chair; it was not used for any other personal or family activities.
Procedural Posture:
- On their 1993 tax return, the Popovs claimed a home office deduction for the portion of their apartment used for violin practice.
- The Internal Revenue Service (the Service) disallowed these deductions.
- The Popovs filed a petition in the United States Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency.
- The Tax Court ruled for the Service, concluding the living room was not Popov’s principal place of business because her income was earned at the performance venues.
- The Popovs, as petitioners-appellants, filed a timely appeal of the Tax Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a room in a taxpayer's home, used exclusively for practice, qualify as their 'principal place of business' for tax deduction purposes under 26 U.S.C. § 280A(c)(1)(A) when the taxpayer is a professional musician who performs and earns income at various other locations?
Opinions:
Majority - Hawkins, J.
Yes. A room used exclusively for practice can qualify as a taxpayer's 'principal place of business' if it meets the governing legal test. The Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner v. Soliman established a two-part test: (1) the relative importance of the activities at each location, and (2) the time spent at each place. Here, the 'relative importance' factor is inconclusive; while Popov delivers her 'service' of performance at concert halls, the practice she does at home is at the 'very heart of her career' and essential to that performance. Because that first factor yields no definitive answer, the 'amount of time' factor assumes particular significance. Popov spent substantially more time practicing in her home office than she did performing or recording at external venues. Therefore, the balance tips in her favor, and the home office qualifies as her principal place of business.
Analysis:
This decision refines the application of the Soliman 'principal place of business' test, particularly for professionals whose essential preparatory work occurs at home while their income-generating 'performance' occurs elsewhere. The court resisted a rigid application of the 'point of delivery of goods and services' factor, creating a more flexible analysis for artists, academics, and attorneys. This precedent establishes that when the importance of activities is comparable, the sheer amount of time spent at a home office can be the determinative factor, broadening the availability of the deduction for certain professions.
Unlock the full brief for Katia V. Popov; Peter Popov v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue