United States Fifth Circuit

A tax court's determination that petitioner was not allowed either a depreciation deduction under 26 U.S.C. section 167 or a tax credit under 26 U.S.C. section 44 in connection with a payphone scheme is affirmed where: 1) there was no clear error in a finding that petitioner did not have ownership of payphones entitling him to a depreciation deduction; and 2) the tax court correctly concluded that petitioner did not have an obligation to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and his investment in the payphones did not qualify as an eligible access expenditure.

Appellate Information

• Decided 11/07/2006
• Published 11/07/2006

Judges

• EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, Circuit Judge:, Before WIENER and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEZ, District Judge.

Court

• United States Fifth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Edward R. Arevalo, Austin, TX, pro se., Deborah K. Snyder, Eileen J. O'Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Tax Div. App. Section, Robert R. Di Trolio, U.S. Tax Court, Donald L. Korb, Chief Counsel, IRS, Washington, DC, for CIR.