T.C. Memo. 1997-208
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
STEVE AND LURA PASHARIKOFF, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 12996-96. Filed May 5, 1997.
Steve Pasharikoff, pro se.
David D. Choi, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
DINAN, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant
to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and
182.1
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are
to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year in
issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' Federal
income tax for 1993 in the amount of $2,509.
After a concession by petitioners,2 the issue remaining for
decision is whether petitioners are entitled to deductions for
ordinary and necessary expenses for travel while away from home
in the pursuit of a trade or business.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulations of fact and attached exhibits are incorporated
herein by this reference. Petitioners resided in Downers Grove,
Illinois, on the date the petition was filed in this case. All
references to petitioner in the singular are to Steve
Pasharikoff.
In 1993, petitioner traveled to Miami, Florida, from his
home in Illinois to help his nephew repair property damage caused
by Hurricane Andrew. Petitioner shared a friend's one-bedroom
condominium, where he slept on a pullout couch.
Petitioner worked for Liberty Drywall, Inc. while he was in
Florida. His job entailed supervising various construction sites
and delivering building materials. Liberty Drywall, Inc.
provided petitioner with a truck for driving from his living
quarters to and between construction sites. As noted supra,
petitioner concedes that he received $8,930 in self-employment
income from Liberty Drywall, Inc. during 1993. Petitioner,
2
Petitioner husband concedes that he received and failed
to report $8,930 in self-employment income for 1993, as
determined by respondent in the statutory notice of deficiency.
- 3 -
however, claims that he is entitled to offset such income with
deductions for living expenses paid while he was working in
Florida.
Deductions are strictly a matter of legislative grace, and
petitioners bear the burden of proving their entitlement to any
deductions claimed. Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner,
503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87
(1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976) In
general, deductions for personal living expenses are disallowed
under section 262.
Section 162(a)(2) allows deductions for traveling expenses
if the expenses are: (1) ordinary and necessary; (2) incurred
while away from home; and (3) incurred in pursuit of a trade or
business. Bochner v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 824, 827 (1977). The
purpose behind the deduction for expenses paid while a taxpayer
is away from home is to ease the burden on the taxpayer who
incurs additional and duplicate living expenses. Rosenspan v.
United States, 438 F.2d 905, 912 (2d Cir. 1971); Tucker v.
Commissioner, 55 T.C. 783, 786 (1971).
Petitioner testified that he paid $500 per month as rent for
his living quarters, in addition to other living expenses such as
food, laundry, and gasoline for his truck. Petitioner also
testified that he paid $1,500 to repair the truck provided to him
by Liberty Drywall Inc. Petitioner, however, failed to produce
any receipts, documentary evidence, or witnesses at trial in
support of his alleged expenses. It is well established that, in
- 4 -
the absence of corroborating evidence, we are not required to
accept the self-serving and unverified testimony of a taxpayer.
Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 212 (1992); Tokarski
v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).
Moreover, section 274(d) provides that no deduction is
allowable under section 162 or 212 for any traveling expenses,
including meals and lodging while away from home, or with respect
to any listed property, defined in section 280F(d)(4) to include
property used as a means of transportation, unless the taxpayer
complies with strict substantiation rules. Sec. 274(d)(1), (4).
In particular, the taxpayer must substantiate the amount, time,
place, and business purpose of the expenses by adequate records
or by sufficient evidence corroborating his own statement. Sec.
274(d); sec. 1.274-5T(b)(2), (c), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50
Fed. Reg. 46014, 46016 (Nov. 6, 1985).
Based on the limited record in this case, we find that
petitioners have failed to adequately substantiate petitioner's
alleged expenses in accordance with the requirements of section
274(d). We therefore hold that petitioners are not entitled to
deductions for expenses allegedly paid while petitioner worked in
Florida.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.