T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-15
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DANIELLE L. CLARK-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 14928-98S. Filed February 20, 2001.
Douglas H. Frazer, for petitioner.
Christa A. Gruber, for respondent.
GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant
to the provisions of section 7463 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. Unless otherwise indicated,
subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
Respondent determined the following deficiencies, additions
to tax, and penalties with respect to petitioner’s Federal income
taxes:
Addition to Tax Penalty
Year Deficiency Section 6651(a) Section 6662(a)
1991 $4,896 $1,291.75 $979.20
1992 4,029 633.75 805.80
1993 5,382 — 1,076.40
After concessions by petitioner,1 the issues for decision are:
(1) Whether petitioner is entitled to deduct certain Schedule C,
Profit or Loss From Business, expenses in excess of amounts
allowed by respondent for the years in issue; (2) whether
petitioner is entitled to claim cost of goods sold for the
1
At trial, petitioner conceded respondent’s
determination allowing 80 percent of the car and truck expenses
for 1991, 1992, and 1993. As to the remaining 20 percent,
petitioner’s arguments will be discussed infra. Petitioner
further conceded 90 percent of respondent’s determination
disallowing some utility expenses for 1991, 1992, and 1993. As
to the remaining 10 percent, petitioner’s arguments will be
discussed infra.
The items and amounts listed below represent expenses
disallowed by respondent that were not addressed by petitioner.
As a result, petitioner is deemed to have conceded these items.
See Rules 142(a), 149; Pearson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-
160.
Claimed Deduction Amount
1991 1993
Rent - Vehicle — $3,734
Commissions --- 288
Insurance $46 ---
Respondent also determined that petitioner was entitled to
additional depreciation deductions of $303 and $641 in 1992 and
1993, respectively. Petitioner is deemed to have conceded these
items because she did not address these matters at trial. See
Rules 142(a), 149; Pearson v. Commissioner, supra.
- 3 -
taxable years 1991 and 1992; (3) whether petitioner is liable for
additions to tax for failure to timely file returns under section
6651(a) for the taxable years 1991 and 1992; and (4) whether
petitioner is liable for accuracy-related penalties pursuant to
section 6662(a) for the years in issue.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are
incorporated herein by this reference. At the time the petition
was filed, petitioner resided in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
A. Background
Petitioner graduated from Milwaukee Area Technical College
(Technical College), a 2-year college. At the Technical College,
petitioner studied business data processing and business
management. After completing Technical College, petitioner
worked in data processing. She also participated in classes
provided by the Small Business Administration, including courses
in basic accounting, management, and other skills related to
small business. During the years in issue petitioner was not
married.
B. History of Petitioner’s Cleaning Business
Prior to 1987, petitioner operated a residential and office
cleaning business called “Quest Cleaning” in Aurora, Colorado.
Petitioner moved back to Milwaukee in 1987 and changed the name
of the cleaning business to “Dustbusters Janitorial Services”
- 4 -
(Dustbusters).
Once back in Milwaukee, petitioner rented a one-room office
from which she operated Dustbusters. Petitioner did not store
any equipment or supplies at this location.
From 1987 through part of 1992, petitioner stored equipment
and supplies in the basement of her mother’s condominium. The
storage space at Ms. Clark’s condominium was approximately 8 feet
by 13 feet with a back entrance providing for easy loading of
cleaning materials and supplies. Petitioner sometimes gave her
mother $250 per month or in lieu of monetary payment made
improvements to the condominium, e.g., painting, decorating, and
carpentry. During this time petitioner also resided with her
mother until she moved into her own personal residence, a four-
room apartment located at 1693 N. Cass Street (Cass St. address).
The apartment building was owned by petitioner’s grandmother.
Petitioner stored supplies, equipment, and materials in a storage
room she had built in the basement. Petitioner used water from
her apartment to dilute cleaning chemicals.
Petitioner employed various people for different client
accounts during the years in issue, including Richard Comeau, Ms.
Sigrist, and Bill Reynolds (Mr. Reynolds). Ms. Sigrist and Mr.
Reynolds each received a Form 1099 from Dustbusters representing
amounts earned for cleaning services rendered during 1991.
Petitioner’s client accounts consisted of cleaning contracts for
- 5 -
a fixed time period, e.g., once a week for a year; cleaning
contracts for the duration of a project, e.g., during the
construction of a building; or one-time cleaning jobs.
Petitioner averaged about 12 steady accounts from 1991 through
1992. The number of accounts, however, increased and decreased
during the following years depending upon new accounts and one-
time cleaning jobs.
Petitioner’s clients were located in various areas
including, but not limited to, Milwaukee, Brookfield, Waukesha,
Mequon, Deansville, Madison, and Kenosha. At times, petitioner
provided snacks, e.g., coffee, donuts, or sandwiches, to her
employees in the office and at the job site. It was not uncommon
for petitioner to work at multiple accounts during a single day.
Petitioner traveled to each site, often returning to earlier
locations to lock up the building or check the status of the
work.
In 1992 and 1993, petitioner was employed by Oscar J. Boldt
Construction Co. (Oscar Boldt) for the Milwaukee County Jail
project (jail project) in addition to operating Dustbusters.
Petitioner worked from 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at her job with Oscar
Boldt, and then on a Dustbusters’ contract at the same jail
project after 3:30 p.m. If petitioner had other accounts she
would attend to them before or after the jail project.
Petitioner was laid off from the jail project in 1992; however,
- 6 -
she was retained as a subcontractor to clean offices. Oscar
Boldt retained petitioner to work for a second project on North
Avenue through 1993. Petitioner’s Form W-2, Wage and Tax
Statement, reflected wages of $10,754.59 and $11,413.76, for the
taxable years 1992 and 1993, respectively.
Petitioner leased a Mazda pickup truck from Fleet Services
from 1989 through 1993. Under the lease terms, petitioner was
responsible for certain specified maintenance (as defined by the
lease contract) and gasoline expenses. Mileage and other
maintenance expenses were included in the lease contract
payments.
Sometime before 1991, petitioner developed an interest in
Japanese culture. Petitioner frequented a local Japanese
restaurant and sushi bar called Izumi’s. At times, petitioner
ate both lunch and dinner, sometimes daily, at Izumi’s. Through
petitioner’s interaction with other Izumi’s patrons, petitioner
acquired a few new cleaning customers, including GE and Star
Automation. Petitioner often bought meals and gifts for her new
Japanese acquaintances. She visited Japan in 1990, 1991, and
1994 to learn more about its language and culture, and to visit
various companies for the purpose of obtaining new accounts.
Petitioner took Japanese language classes in order to communicate
with the Japanese contacts she met. Many of the Japanese
business people petitioner met did not work for companies in the
- 7 -
Milwaukee area. Rather, they were representatives of Japanese
companies located in Japan and San Francisco. Petitioner
frequently called these acquaintances in Japan and developed
friendships with them.
C. Maintenance of Petitioner’s Business Records
Petitioner used binders or folders to collect receipts for
various expenses. For instance, all cleaning expense receipts
went into one folder, and all meal receipts went into another
folder. At the end of the year, petitioner gathered all her
receipts for a given category or expenditure, ran a tape total,
wrote the total on a piece of paper, and entered the tape total
amount on a line on the Schedule C that closely related to the
expense. Expenses were paid through a business checking account,
petitioner’s personal checking account, and petitioner’s personal
credit card. Petitioner also kept track of receipts paid by
“petty cash”. All categorization of business expenses was made
at the time petitioner placed the receipts into the respective
folder.
Petitioner prepared her Federal income tax returns for the
years in issue. She did not seek or obtain advice from a
professional tax preparer or anyone else relative to the
accounting or bookkeeping of her business.
On Schedules C attached to her 1991, 1992, and 1993 Federal
income tax returns, petitioner reported gross receipts of
- 8 -
$50,407, $36,560, and $37,246, respectively. Petitioner reported
a net Schedule C profit of $1,915 for 1991, a loss of $11,939 for
1992, and a loss of $15,610 for 1993.
D. Respondent’s Determination
Respondent issued a notice of deficiency and made the
following adjustments to Schedule C deductions by petitioner:
1991 1992 1993
Claimed Allowed Dis- Claimed Allowed Dis- Claimed Allowed Dis-
allowed allowed allowed
Advert. $210 $210 0 $948 $948 0 $975 $975 0
Car and 7,709 5,462 2,247 7,865 4,020 3,845 2,249 4,244 (1,995)
truck
Commission -- -- -- -- -- -- 288 0 288
Insurance 408 362 46 1,104 1,104 0 1,935 2,034 (99)
Legal and 696 696 0 898 898 0 407 407 0
prof. serv.
Office 4,829 2,758 2,071 8,535 2,195 6,340 9,308 1,451 7,857
expense
Rent - -- -- -- -- -- -- 3,734 0 3,734
Vehicle
Rent - 1,620 1,700 (80) 4,375 1,200 3,175 6,900 1,200 5,700
Other
Taxes 6 6 0 12 12 0 5 5 0
Travel 1,619 311 1,308 392 392 0 645 645 0
Meals/Ent. 8,964 1,000 7,964 6,677 1,000 5,677 7,252 1,000 6,252
Utilities 3,341 1,553 1,788 2,864 1,564 1,300 3,724 1,220 2,504
Wages 600 0 600 4,583 4,583 0 2,085 2,085 0
Donations 600 0 600 100 0 100 -- -- --
Payroll 1,015 1,015 0 1,040 1,049 (9) 222 249 (27)
Gifts 640 205 435 683 142 541 2,643 25 2,618
Cleaning 949 0 949 -- -- -- 7,337 3,359 3,978
Supplies
Outside -- – – -- -- -- 1,487 1,425 62
Services
Deprec. -- -- -- 0 303 (303) 0 641 (641)
Repairs/ –- -- -- -- -- -- 1,660 197 1,463
Maint.
Total 33,206 15,278 17,928 40,076 19,410 20,666 52,856 21,162 31,694
Cost of Goods Sold
Claimed Allowed Dis- Claimed Allowed Dis- Claimed Allowed Dis-
allowed allowed allowed
Cost of 8,838 8,838 0 1,696 1,527 169 -- -- --
Labor
Material/ 6,448 4,932 1,516 6,702 3,827 2,875 -- -- --
Supplies
Available 15,286 13,770 1,516 8,398 5,354 3,044 -- -- –-
Also, for 1991, 1992, and 1993, respondent allowed
petitioner adjusted deductions of $1,373, $832, and $1,137,
- 9 -
respectively, for one-half of the self-employment tax due.
Respondent disallowed deductions in the amounts shown above
because they were not ordinary and necessary and were not
incurred in carrying on a trade or business. Further, respondent
determined that petitioner failed to maintain adequate records,
failed to substantiate the claimed deductions, and untimely filed
her returns. We agree with respondent.
E. Schedule C Expense Deductions
Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and taxpayers
bear the burden of proving the entitlement to any deduction
claimed. See INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84
(1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440
(1934). A taxpayer is required to maintain records sufficient to
establish the amount of his or her income and deductions. See
sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), (e), Income Tax Regs.
Section 162(a) allows a taxpayer to deduct all ordinary and
necessary business expenses paid or incurred during the taxable
year in carrying on any trade or business. To be “necessary” an
expense must be “appropriate and helpful” to the taxpayer’s
business. Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 113 (1933). To be
“ordinary” the transaction which gives rise to the expense must
be of a common or frequent occurrence in the type of business
involved. Deputy v. Du Pont, 308 U.S. 488, 495 (1940). No
deduction is allowed for personal, living, or family expenses.
- 10 -
See sec. 262(a).
Generally, if a claimed business expense is deductible, but
the taxpayer is unable to substantiate it, the Court is permitted
to make as close an approximation as it can, bearing heavily
against the taxpayer whose inexactitude is of his or her own
making. See Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir.
1930). The estimate must have a reasonable evidentiary basis.
See Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 743 (1985).
Section 274 supersedes the doctrine in Cohan v.
Commissioner, supra, see sec. 1.274-5T(a), Temporary Income Tax
Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6, 1985), and requires strict
substantiation of expenses for travel, meals and entertainment,
and gifts, and with respect to any listed property as defined in
section 280F(d)(4), see sec. 274(d). Listed property includes
any passenger automobile or any other property used as a means of
transportation. See sec. 280F(d)(4)(A)(i) and (ii).
A taxpayer is required by section 274(d) to substantiate a
claimed expense by adequate records or by sufficient evidence
corroborating the taxpayer’s own statement establishing the
amount, time, place, and business purpose of the expense. See
sec. 274(d). Even if such an expense would otherwise be
deductible, the deduction may still be denied if there is
insufficient substantiation to support it. See sec. 1.274-5T(a),
Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra.
- 11 -
1. Travel
Respondent disallowed $1,308 of petitioner’s 1991 travel
expense deduction for failure to substantiate the amounts by the
necessary records.
The amount of business travel must be substantiated “by the
use of a contemporaneous log of business travel, or by any
reasonable means establishing the number of miles traveled, the
date, the place, and the business purpose of such miles”.
Kravette v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-124 (citing Smith v.
Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1165, 1171-1173 (1983)); see also sec.
1.274-5T(a)(1), Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra.
Petitioner testified that she traveled to Brookfield,
Wisconsin, for a seminar but failed to provide the location and
title of the seminar and an explanation of how the seminar was
related to her business. Petitioner also traveled to Boston with
her fiancé to visit a cousin who was purportedly interested in
opening a franchise of Dustbusters. Finally, petitioner provided
a Budgetel Inn invoice for an overnight stay without a disclosed
location and purpose. Besides being unable to substantiate the
amount claimed on petitioner’s Schedule C by the receipts
provided, petitioner failed to submit any evidence of a
contemporaneous notation showing how the expenses were reasonable
and necessary in the pursuit of her business. At trial,
petitioner testified to the business purpose of the travel
- 12 -
expenses for the receipts as noted above. It is well settled,
however, that we are not required to accept a taxpayer’s self-
serving testimony in the absence of corroborating evidence. See
Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 212 (1992).
Respondent is sustained on this issue.
2. Meals and Entertainment
Petitioner deducted meals and entertainment expenses in
1991, 1992, and 1993, respectively, of $8,964, $6,677, and
$7,252. Respondent allowed $1,000 for each respective year.
The record reflects that petitioner deducted the costs of
personal meals she had with her fiancé under the guise of
“management meetings”. Petitioner testified that she had
barbecues or cookouts for suppliers, vendors, and employees. She
also cooked meals at home and served them to employees at the
work site. Petitioner had receipts reflecting a birthday dinner
for her fiancé where one other employee may have attended; thus,
according to petitioner, it qualified as a business-related meal.
She had multiple receipts for purchases made at local grocery
stores and fast food restaurants when she was “out of the area”.
Entertainment included baseball tickets to Brewers baseball
games for employees, theater tickets, and tickets to the
Milwaukee Zoo for her Japanese acquaintances. However, similar
to the meals expenses, petitioner has failed to follow the strict
substantiation rules of section 274(d).
- 13 -
Petitioner failed to produce documentation or corroborative
evidence to comply with the strict substantiation requirements of
section 274(d); therefore, petitioner is not entitled to
deductions for meals and entertainment expenses in excess of the
amounts allowed by respondent for 1991, 1992, and 1993.
Petitioner did not contemporaneously annotate receipts indicating
the place, date, amount, and business purpose of the meal. At
the request of Revenue Agent Valerie Schwartz (Ms. Schwartz),
petitioner provided a list identifying the date, place, amount,
business relationship, business purpose, and resulting sales, if
any, for the meals and entertainment expenses. The list was
created in 1996 for Ms. Schwartz during petitioner’s examination.
Although petitioner claims that similar worksheets were created
for all the years in issue, only the 1992 worksheet was provided.
We question petitioner’s ability to remember such minute details
over as much as a 5-year time period for hundreds of meals and
entertainment engagements. Not only does petitioner fail to
follow the strict substantiation requirements, the Court has the
discretion to disregard testimony which we find self-serving.
See Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, supra at 212.
Respondent is sustained on this issue.
3. Gifts
Petitioner claimed a deduction for business gifts of $640,
$683, and $2,643 in 1991, 1992, and 1993, respectively.
- 14 -
Respondent allowed $205, $142, and $25, respectively.
Petitioner’s receipts submitted during trial substantiate
the following amounts: $0 for 1991, $120.62 for 1992, and $0 for
1993. As a threshold issue, petitioner failed to substantiate
the amounts of the claimed deductions. Next, petitioner
testified at trial that some of the “business gifts” included
personal gifts to her mother. Petitioner has the burden to show
how a business gift was “ordinary and necessary” to her business
and that it was made with the reasonable expectation of a
commensurate financial return. Petitioner has not met this
burden.
The scanty documentary evidence, in conjunction with
petitioner’s own statements, does not constitute the adequate
records and substantiating documentation as required by the
statute and regulations. See Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C.
823 (1968), affd. 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969). Accordingly, we
sustain respondent’s determination with respect to this issue.
4. Car and Truck Expenses
At trial, petitioner conceded respondent’s determination
that 80 percent of petitioner’s truck expenses in 19912 were for
business purposes. For the taxable year 1991, petitioner
2
The parties agree that the arguments for 1991 apply to
1992 and 1993, and, therefore, our analysis will have the same
effect on all the years in issue.
- 15 -
deducted $7,709 in car and truck expenses, of which only $6,648
was substantiated. Respondent allowed $5,318.40 per examination,
which is 80 percent of the amount substantiated. Petitioner
contends that she conceded 80 percent of the claimed $7,709 truck
expense, and that respondent further reduced petitioner’s truck
expense by making adjustments for commuting. Respondent argues
that local transportation expenses were included in the 80
percent and petitioner’s further arguments regarding commuting
are misplaced. We agree with respondent.
Petitioner agreed to the 80/20 division between business and
personal use of her vehicle. Only $6,648 was substantiated which
respondent used as the base for the 80-percent calculation.
Petitioner offered no evidence to support any additional
transportation expenses in excess of respondent’s allowed car and
truck expenses for the years in issue. She did not keep a daily
log or a diary of places traveled to during any of the years in
issue. While she kept a calendar or a “rough little pad of
paper, or whatever, that told me where I was going to go”, she
did not write down the distance to her regular accounts or
“regular goings to pick up supplies”. Although we find that
petitioner traveled from one job location to the next as was
needed, petitioner failed to comply with the strict requirements
of the statute.
Respondent is sustained on this issue.
- 16 -
5. Office Expenses
Petitioner deducted office expenses of $4,829, $8,535, and
$9,308 in 1991, 1992, and 1993, respectively. Respondent allowed
$2,758, $2,195, and $1,451, respectively.
At trial, however, petitioner produced a melange of receipts
that did not substantiate her claimed office expense deductions.
Petitioner attempted to substantiate the claimed office expenses
by submitting check receipts and canceled checks drawn on
Dustbusters checking account and petitioner’s personal checking
account, and credit card statements. Of the receipts presented,
petitioner testified that she counted only items on the receipts
that were related to her office. In arguing that the expenses
were personal in nature rather than related to petitioner’s
business, respondent notes that the receipts included amounts for
union dues associated with her W-2 jobs, Audubon print books,
snacks for the office, medication, vodka and wine, kitchenware,
dance/exercise clothing, Guess brand apparel, floral
arrangements, groceries, hair accessories, blankets, pillows, and
wallpaper. In some instances, receipts were duplicated in the
same year or in subsequent years. Notations, if any, on the
checks submitted were vague. In addition, some checks were
simply made out to “cash” with no notation on the bottom that it
was for a deductible business expense.
Finally, on brief petitioner cites to “Treas. Reg.
- 17 -
1.262(f)(2)(ii)” for the proposition that food and beverages
furnished on the taxpayer’s business premises are deductible and
not subject to the limitation on deductions. Apparently,
petitioner was referring to section 1.274-2(f)(2)(ii), Income Tax
Regs. However, this regulation does not assist petitioner’s
position as she failed to substantiate the deductions.
It is clear from the evidence submitted and the testimony
provided during trial that petitioner failed to substantiate in
any coherent manner expenditures she considered as office
expenses. On the basis of the record, we hold that petitioner is
not entitled to deduct office expenses in excess of respondent’s
allowed office expenses for the years in issue.
6. Rent - Other Expenses
Petitioner deducted rent expenses of $1,620, $4,375, and
$6,900 in 1991, 1992, and 1993, respectively. Respondent allowed
$1,700, $1,200, and $1,200, respectively. Petitioner contends
that the disallowed rental expenses associated with storage space
at her mother’s home and the Cass St. address are deductible.
Section 280A generally prohibits deductions of otherwise
allowable expenses with respect to the use of an individual
taxpayer’s home. This prohibition, however, does not apply to
space allocable within a “dwelling unit which is used on a
regular basis as a storage unit for the inventory or product
samples of the taxpayer held for use in the taxpayer’s trade or
- 18 -
business of selling products at retail or wholesale, but only if
the dwelling unit is the sole fixed location of such trade or
business.” Sec. 280A(c)(2).
For 1992, petitioner deducted expenses for office rent which
respondent fully allowed. However, petitioner contends that she
is entitled to “home office” and storage expenses. We disagree.
We find petitioner’s testimony conflicting and confusing, and her
position unjustifiable. She testified that a portion of her home
was used during the time “when I first started” Dustbusters.
However, she also testified that she began Dustbusters in 1987
and utilized office space rented at 7856 West Appleton Avenue
since 1987.
The record also reflects that petitioner deducted monthly
rent paid to her mother and grandmother as alleged rental costs
for storage space. At trial, Ms. Clark testified that the $250
rent that petitioner sometimes paid was “to help out with
everything”. Petitioner also admitted that rental payments made
to her grandmother were for her personal residence, thus
nondeductible.
In this case, petitioner does not fit within the exception
of section 280A(c)(2) because she had a fixed place of business
at 7856 West Appleton Avenue during the same time period that she
is claiming deductions for home office expenses. The storage
areas in issue were located at petitioner’s various personal
- 19 -
residences. The exception clearly applies in situations where
the dwelling unit is the sole fixed location of the trade or
business. Because petitioner had an office, her fixed place of
business, other than her residences, section 280A(c)(2) does not
apply. See Garvey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-176.
Moreover, petitioner’s equipment and supplies for her cleaning
business do not constitute inventory, as required under the
statute. See Banatwala v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-483.
Accordingly, petitioner failed to establish that she is
entitled to deduct additional rents in excess of the amounts
respondent allowed. Respondent is sustained on this issue.
7. Utilities
Petitioner claimed utility expense deductions of $3,341,
$2,864, and $3,724 in 1991, 1992, and 1993, respectively.
Respondent allowed $1,553, $1,564, and $1,220, respectively. At
trial, petitioner agreed to 90 percent of respondent’s
adjustments. Petitioner admits that personal utility expenses
were incorrectly deducted in 1991, 1992, and 1993. However, she
continues to contend that she is entitled to 10 percent of the
disallowed utility expense deductions. It was also determined
that in 1991, yellow page advertisements charged to petitioner’s
telephone bills, were already included in petitioner’s claimed
utility expenses for that year, and no additional amount was
- 20 -
warranted.3
Business related telephone calls were made from petitioner’s
office, her mother’s home (in 1991 and part of 1992), and the
Cass St. address from September 1992 through 1993. Petitioner
did not identify which phone calls were personal or business
related. Petitioner testified that she “just put it in the
computer. I was thinking it was kind of done in the system”.
Petitioner also deducted the electricity at the Cass St. address
for the washer and dryer and charging of equipment. Petitioner
provided copies of her home telephone bills without any
indication of which calls were personal or business related and
copies of her business phone bills with missing monthly
statements.
Petitioner further contends that water, electricity, and gas
expenses were incurred in the ordinary course of business.
Heaters kept equipment and supplies warm, water was used to mix
chemicals, and the washer and dryer were used to launder dirty
towels and clothing.
Although it is within the purview of the Court to estimate
the amount of allowable deductions where there is evidence that
deductible expenses were incurred, Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d
at 543-544, we cannot do so when there is no reliable evidence on
3
Petitioner attempted to claim the yellow page
advertisements as an additional expense for the years in issue,
in addition to the amounts previously claimed.
- 21 -
which to make such estimations. See Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85
T.C. at 742-743. For 1991 and 1992, petitioner provided one
utility bill. For 1993, petitioner provided copies of Wisconsin
Electric, Wisconsin Gas, and Milwaukee Water Works bills for her
personal residence which we hold are nondeductible personal
expenses.
Based on the above, we find that petitioner failed to
establish that utility expense deductions in excess of the
amounts allowed by respondent were ordinary and necessary
business expenses. Respondent is sustained on this issue.
8. Donations
Petitioner deducted donations of $600 and $100 in 1991 and
1992, respectively. Respondent disallowed the deductions in full
for both years.
Petitioner testified that donations included items which she
labeled “gifts/donation” in 1991 and “promos” in 1992.
Petitioner further testified that “promos” or “promotions”
included “perks for employees” and other items as a work
incentive. Petitioner’s receipts under “promos” for 1992
included several items of jewelry, wallpaper, interior paint, an
ironing board, gourmet foods, candy, and perfume totaling
$457.90. Petitioner’s 1991 receipts totaled $104.17, which is
far from the claimed deduction of $600.
Not only has petitioner failed to substantiate specific
- 22 -
donations pursuant to section 1.170A-13(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.,
but she also testified that the wallpaper, interior paint, and
ironing board were given to her mother, which items thus are
personal and nondeductible. Consequently, respondent’s
determination is sustained.
9. Repairs/Maintenance
Petitioner deducted $1,660 for repairs and maintenance in
1993. Of that amount, respondent allowed $197. Petitioner
testified that all of the personal checks written to Tony Lloyd,
Interior/Exterior Decorating Specialists, totaling $849, are for
remodeling her mother’s residence. Since this remodeling is
personal in nature, the expenses are not deductible. Petitioner
argues that the repairs were made in lieu of rent to her mother.
If that were the case, petitioner would have included these
amounts under storage expenses. In any event, we have already
determined that the amounts deducted as rent were for
petitioner’s habitation as opposed to storage use, and thus were
personal in nature.
Since petitioner has not provided any other evidence for
repairs or maintenance, she is not entitled to any deduction in
excess of respondent’s determination.
F. Cost of Goods Sold
1. Wages/Payroll/Outside Services/Cost of Labor
During the years in issue, petitioner used four different
- 23 -
categories to report labor expenses.
For 1991, respondent disallowed a claimed deduction for
wages of $600 and allowed petitioner’s claimed payroll expense
deduction of $1,015 and cost of labor, as a cost of goods sold,
of $8,838 in full. As to years 1992 and 1993, respondent
allowed, in full, claimed deductions for wages of $4,583 and
$2,085, respectively. In addition to allowing petitioner’s
claimed payroll deductions for years 1992 and 1993, respondent
credited petitioner an additional $9 and $27, respectively.
Respondent, however, disallowed $169 of petitioner’s claimed cost
of labor, as a cost of goods sold, for 1992. For 1993,
respondent disallowed $62 of petitioner’s claimed outside
services expense deduction.
Reasonable compensation for services actually rendered is
deductible under section 162 as an ordinary and necessary
business expense. See sec. 162(a)(1). It is unclear why
petitioner separated payments made to employees into four
separate categories; nevertheless, we discuss them together as
they clearly refer to payments petitioner made as compensation
for services rendered.
It is respondent’s position that petitioner has duplicated
her 1991 wages expense in amounts previously allowed by
respondent under payroll and cost of labor. Petitioner offered
the testimony of Ms. Sigrist and Ms. Comeau to prove that the
- 24 -
amounts of their compensation were not included under payroll
expense or cost of labor. Respondent argues that the amount
shown in the Form 1099 Ms. Sigrist received was already included
under cost of labor. Petitioner offered no evidence to
substantiate the 1992 cost of labor deductions.
Petitioner has the burden to substantiate the claimed labor
expenses. See Rule 142. She has failed to do so. Petitioner
submitted receipts which do not appear to concern wages, payroll,
outside services, or cost of labor categories. The few receipts
submitted do not approach the amounts claimed on petitioner’s
returns and only add to the confusion. Contrary to petitioner’s
argument, the witnesses at trial could not corroborate who worked
on which project and whether the respective witness ever received
payment for services rendered.
Respondent is sustained on this issue.
2. Cleaning Supplies/Materials and Supplies (Cost of Goods
Sold)
Respondent disallowed deductions for cleaning supplies
expenses of $949 and $3,978 for 1991 and 1993, respectively.
Respondent further disallowed materials and supplies, as a cost
of goods sold, of $1,516 and $2,875 for 1991 and 1992,
respectively. Respondent contends that petitioner claimed
amounts for personal items in addition to business supplies.
Petitioner contends that only expenses for cleaning supplies from
- 25 -
wholesale suppliers were allowed while those from retail
merchants, e.g., Target and Walgreens, were disallowed.
While we accept petitioner’s testimony that she purchased
supplies at retail establishments for convenience, it is unclear
whether petitioner excluded personal items contemporaneously
purchased with business supplies and materials. After review of
the record, it is evident that petitioner could not substantiate
the amount of expenses which respondent allowed for the years in
issue. It is petitioner’s burden to present evidence to the
Court proving the necessity of each item in the ordinary course
of business. The Court again finds that petitioner’s receipts
are in such a disarray that the amounts respondent had previously
allowed were not discernable. Based upon the above, we find that
petitioner is not entitled to deductions or cost of goods sold in
excess of those which respondent has allowed.
G. Section 6651(a)
Respondent determined additions to tax as a result of
petitioner’s failure to file timely returns for 1991 and 1992.
Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to
timely file a tax return. The addition to tax is equal to 5
percent of the amount of the tax required to be shown on the
return if the failure to file is not for more than 1 month. See
sec. 6651(a)(1). An additional 5 percent is imposed for each
month or fraction thereof in which the failure to file continues,
- 26 -
to a maximum of 25 percent of the tax. See id.
The addition is applicable for each year unless petitioner
establishes that her failure to file was due to reasonable cause
and not willful neglect. See id. If petitioner exercised
ordinary business care and prudence and was nonetheless unable to
file her return within the date prescribed by law, then
reasonable cause exists. See sec. 301.6651-1(c)(1), Proced. &
Admin. Regs. “Willful neglect” means a “conscious, intentional
failure or reckless indifference.” United States v. Boyle, 469
U.S. 241, 245 (1985).
Petitioner’s 1991 Federal income tax return was due on April
15, 1992. Petitioner filed a blank return with an application
for extension on June 5, 1992. Petitioner filed her 1991 and
1992 Federal income tax returns in June 1994. She contends that
the late filing of her 1992 return was a result of waiting for
the completion of the 1991 return.
Petitioner has failed to show that she exercised ordinary
business care and prudence in this case. Respondent is sustained
on this issue.
H. Section 6662(a)
The last issue for decision is whether petitioner is liable
for accuracy-related penalties pursuant to section 6662(a) for
the years in issue. Section 6662(a) imposes a penalty of 20
percent of the portion of the underpayment which is attributable
- 27 -
to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations. See sec.
6662(b)(1). Negligence is the “‘lack of due care or failure to
do what a reasonable and ordinarily prudent person would do under
the circumstances’”. Neely v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947
(1985) (quoting Marcello v. Commissioner, 380 F.2d 499, 506 (5th
Cir. 1967), affg. 43 T.C. 168 (1964) and T.C. Memo. 1964-299).
It includes any failure by the taxpayer to keep adequate books
and records or to substantiate items properly. See sec. 1.6662-
3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. The term “disregard” includes any
careless, reckless, or intentional disregard. Sec. 6662(c). No
penalty shall be imposed if it is shown that there was reasonable
cause for the underpayment and the taxpayer acted in good faith
with respect to the underpayment. See sec. 6664(c).
At trial, petitioner failed to establish that she acted in
good faith with respect to the underpayments during the years in
issue. Petitioner claimed excessive Schedule C expenses which
she was unable to substantiate and disregarded the requirements
of sections 162 and 274. In the Court’s opinion, neither the
receipts submitted by petitioner nor her testimony established a
business purpose for the claimed expenses. On the basis of the
record, we hold that petitioner is liable for the accuracy-
related penalties under section 6662(a) for 1991, 1992, and 1993.
- 28 -
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.