## Facts

- Alfred W. Hamacher, a professional actor, worked for the Alliance Theatre in Atlanta during 1983–1984 in two capacities: (1) independent contractor actor in productions and (2) employee teaching acting and administering the theater’s acting school.
- The theater provided Hamacher an office for his employee duties, but it was shared and subject to interruptions.
- Hamacher maintained a room in his apartment used exclusively for business activities related to both his independent contractor acting work and his employee teaching/administrative work.
- For independent contractor work, Hamacher spent roughly half of his rehearsal time in the home office and the remainder at an outside rehearsal facility.
- For employee work, he performed some teaching/administrative tasks at home to avoid interruptions at the theater office; the employer did not require a home office.
- Hamacher deducted an allocable share of apartment rent and related expenses as home office expenses and claimed additional automobile expenses for travel to and from the home office.
- The Commissioner disallowed the home office expenses and the additional automobile expenses; Hamacher conceded the automobile expenses were deductible only if the home office qualified under I.R.C. § 280A(c)(1).

## Issues

1. Whether a room used exclusively for business qualifies for a home office deduction under I.R.C. § 280A(c)(1) when the room is used for multiple business activities and one activity (employee work) fails the § 280A(c)(1) requirements, including the “convenience of the employer” test.
2. Whether commuting-related automobile expenses to and from the home office are deductible when the home office does not qualify under § 280A(c)(1).

## Decision

- The Tax Court held that a taxpayer may conduct more than one business activity from a home office and still qualify under § 280A(c).
- The court held that Hamacher’s employee use of the home office did not satisfy § 280A(c)(1) because it was not for the convenience of the employer.
- The court held that if any business activity conducted in the space fails § 280A(c)(1), the exclusivity requirement is not met for any activity conducted in that space.
- The court sustained the Commissioner’s disallowance of the home office deductions and, because the home office did not qualify, disallowed the additional automobile expense deductions.

## Legal Principles

- A home office may be used for multiple business activities and still qualify under I.R.C. § 280A(c)(1), but each business use of the space must independently satisfy the statute’s requirements.
- The “exclusive use” requirement in § 280A(c)(1) is not satisfied when the space is used for any business activity that does not qualify under § 280A(c)(1), even if other activities would qualify if considered alone.
- For an employee, home office use must be for the employer’s convenience; having employer-provided office space and working at home for the employee’s preference (e.g., fewer interruptions) generally fails that test.
- Deductions for commuting-related automobile expenses to and from a home office depend on the home office qualifying as a deductible business location under § 280A(c)(1).

## Conclusion

The Tax Court denied the home office deduction because the taxpayer’s employee use of the room was not for the convenience of the employer, and that nonqualifying use caused the space to fail § 280A(c)(1)’s exclusivity requirement for all activities; the related commuting automobile deductions were also disallowed.


Hamacher v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 348 (1990)