T.C. Summary Opinion 2001-161
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ROBERT WALTER ALLISON, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 13733-99S. Filed October 11, 2001.
Robert Walter Allison, pro se.
John W. Stevens and Robert D. Heitmeyer, 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 year in issue, and all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
In a notice of deficiency, respondent determined that
- 2 -
petitioner is liable for a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal
income tax for the taxable year 1995 in the amount of $3,081.
After concessions made by respondent,1 the issue for
decision is whether petitioner is entitled to deduct certain
Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, expenses in excess of
amounts allowed by respondent for the year in issue. Adjustments
to the earned income credit, self-employment income tax and the
deduction therefor are computational and will be resolved by the
Court’s holding in this case.
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 Troy, Michigan.
Background
Petitioner is the sole proprietor of Allison Associates,
which is in the business of selling training equipment and
supplies to public schools across the United States. He has been
in the business of sales for more than 40 years. During 1995,
petitioner operated Allison Associates out of his 1,050 square
foot, 2-bedroom apartment. Petitioner had lived alone in the
apartment since about 1990, and it was not used to entertain
family or other guests.
1
Respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled to $26
of the utility expense and $826 of the business use of home
expense claimed on his Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business.
- 3 -
Petitioner is an independent representative of various
school suppliers. Customers did not typically enter his
apartment for business. Rather, customers would telephone orders
through petitioner’s toll-free 800 number or via facsimile.
Petitioner traveled to various locations across the country to
meet with school representatives to sell school supply products.
Petitioner kept boxes of literature, samples of textbooks or
computer software, and office supplies in the apartment.
Petitioner also used a storage area in the basement,
approximately 8 feet by 12 feet, to store boxes of literature,
sample products, and office supplies. Petitioner did not store
items of inventory in the apartment or the storage area.
Petitioner uses the smaller of the two bedrooms,
approximately 10 feet by 10 feet, as his primary office. This
room is cluttered with office furniture, literature, files, and
office supplies. He did not have an office located outside of
this apartment. The master bedroom is petitioner’s bedroom,
approximately 11 feet by 15 feet. This room is furnished with a
nightstand and bed which petitioner uses at night. Petitioner
stacked boxes of miscellaneous files and supplies in the corner
of the master bedroom. The living room, approximately 17 feet by
12 feet, and dining room, approximately 8 feet by 9 feet, are
petitioner’s “work space” where he packages materials and fills
envelopes, and conducts other office work. There is also a large
- 4 -
table in this area which petitioner does not clear off for eating
his meals. In his apartment, petitioner has three televisions,
which he watches for recreation.
In the notice of deficiency respondent made the following
adjustments to Schedule C deductions by petitioner:
1996
Claimed Allowed Disallowed
Car and truck $4,900 $1,225 $3,675
Interest 250 0 250
Travel 2,864 1,682 1,182
Utilities 120 26 94
Exhibits 575 550 25
General 1,949 683 1,266
Association 225 227 (2)
fees
Business use of 4,130 826 3,304
home
Total $15,013 $5,219 $9,794
All numbers are rounded up to the nearest dollar.
Respondent disallowed deductions in the amounts shown above
because petitioner failed to show that each claimed deduction was
an ordinary and necessary business expense, or, in the
alternative, because petitioner failed to substantiate the
claimed deduction.
Discussion
Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the
taxpayer bears the burden of proving the entitlement to any
deduction claimed. 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
- 5 -
establish the amount of his or her income and deductions. 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.
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. Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir.
1930). The estimate must have a reasonable evidentiary basis.
Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 743 (1985). However,
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).
- 6 -
Sec. 274(d). Listed property includes any passenger automobile
or any other property used as a means of transportation. 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. 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. Sec. 1.274-5T(a), Temporary Income
Tax Regs., supra.
1. Car and Truck
At trial, petitioner’s testimony as to the car and truck
expense was confusing and inconsistent. As stated above, section
274 requires strict substantiation for deductions claimed for
transportation in a passenger car. Petitioner testified that he
used the actual mileage to calculate the $4,900 car and truck
expense. Steven Sheeley, the Internal Revenue Service agent who
handled petitioner’s audit, testified that petitioner explained
at audit that he calculated the amount of this deduction on a per
mile allocation; i.e., 20,000 business miles at 31 cents per
mile. Despite the apparent conflict in testimony, the rule for
substantiating car and truck expenses is clear. Petitioner is
required to provide a mileage log establishing the amount, time,
- 7 -
place, and business purpose of the expense. At trial, petitioner
failed to provide any corroborating evidence, besides his self-
serving testimony. The Court has discretion to disregard
testimony which we find self-serving. Niedringhaus v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 212 (1992). Accordingly, petitioner
is not entitled to deduct a car and truck expense in excess of
respondent’s allowed car and truck expense for the year in issue.
2. Travel
Respondent disallowed $3,675 of petitioner’s 1995 travel
expense deduction for failure to substantiate the amounts by the
necessary records. We agree with respondent.
Petitioner testified that he traveled extensively to public
schools across the United States. Although records were
submitted to show the location of travel and the amount of the
expense; i.e., lodging and airfare, petitioner failed to provide
any information as to the purpose of the travel. There is no
information in the record showing the names of the schools
visited, the name of the contact person at the school, or the
business purpose of the meeting. Section 274(d) requires strict
substantiation, and it is clear to this Court that petitioner
failed to meet his burden. Although we find that petitioner
traveled to these places, petitioner failed to comply with the
strict requirements of the statute.
- 8 -
3. General
Petitioner claimed a deduction for general expenses of
$1,949. Respondent disallowed $1,266 of this general expense.
As with other items of expense deductions, petitioner’s
testimony provided little guidance as to what was claimed under
the “general” category. Although petitioner’s summary of his
credit card spending for 1995 is helpful to substantiate amounts
paid during that year, it provides no other helpful information.
Petitioner is required to provide a business purpose for expenses
claimed under section 162. Without a clear indication of what
amounts constitute “general” expenses, we cannot allow a
deduction in excess of respondent’s previously allowed amount.
Respondent is sustained on this issue.
4. Business Use of Home
Section 280A generally prohibits deduction of otherwise
allowable expenses with respect to the use of an individual
taxpayer’s home. This prohibition, however, does not apply to
any item that is allocable to a portion of the home that is
exclusively used on a regular basis as the principal place of
business for the taxpayer’s trade or business or to space that is
used on a regular basis for storage of the taxpayer’s inventory
held for use in the taxpayer’s trade or business of selling
products at retail or wholesale. Sec. 280A(c)(1) and (2).
Petitioner claimed a Schedule C business use of home expense
- 9 -
deduction in the amount of $4,130. Petitioner deducted this
amount as a home office expense for the year at issue based on
the use of 50 percent of his apartment and use of his basement
storage closet, which he used as an office and storage space,
respectively.
Respondent conceded that the smaller bedroom was used
exclusively as petitioner’s principal place of business. This
concession resulted in the allowance of a home office deduction
of $826, based on petitioner’s business usage of 10 percent of
his apartment.2 However, petitioner contends that 50 percent of
his apartment, including the storage area, was used solely for
his business. We disagree.
Although there is evidence that petitioner performed some
office activities in other rooms of his apartment, i.e., his
living room and dining room, petitioner did not use those rooms
exclusively for his business. See Popov v. Commissioner, 246
F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2001), affg. in part and revg. in part T.C.
Memo. 1998-374.
In addition, the storage space used by petitioner and
claimed as a home office expense for 1995 was not used for the
storage of items used as inventory, and petitioner is not
entitled to a deduction for the use of this space pursuant to
2
Petitioner’s total rent of his apartment for 1995 was
$8,260.
- 10 -
section 280A(c)(2). Accordingly, petitioner failed to establish
that he is entitled to deduct an additional amount in excess of
the amount respondent allowed. Respondent is sustained on this
issue.
5. Interest, Utilities, and Exhibit
Petitioner failed to provide any information as to the
claimed interest expense deduction, utility expense deduction, or
exhibit expense deduction. As a result, petitioner is deemed to
have conceded these items. See Rules 142(a), 149; Pearson v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-160.
We have considered all arguments by the parties, and, to the
extent not discussed above, conclude that they are irrelevant or
without merit.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.