T.C. Memo. 2008-68
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JASBINDER SINGH, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 21311-06. Filed March 18, 2008.
Jasbinder Singh, pro se.
Margaret Burow, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
HAINES, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency in
petitioner’s Federal income tax of $22,144 and a penalty under
section 6662(a) of $4,428 for 2004.1
1
Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code, as amended. Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Amounts are rounded
(continued...)
-2-
After concessions,2 the issue for decision is whether
petitioner is entitled to deduct on Schedule C, Profit or Loss
From Business, certain expenses in excess of those respondent
conceded.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts, the exhibits attached thereto, and the
stipulation of settled issues are incorporated herein by this
reference. At the time he filed his petition, petitioner resided
in Modesto, California.
During 2004, petitioner owned his own commercial truck and
was self-employed as a truck driver. Petitioner used his truck
to transport cargo throughout the San Francisco Bay area for one
client, GSC Logistics. While not making deliveries, petitioner
parked his truck at a yard owned by GSC Logistics. He traveled
between his residence and the yard using his Ford Mustang. On
his 2004 Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, petitioner
claimed $82,428 of Schedule C expenses with respect to his truck
driving. On July 19, 2006, respondent issued petitioner a notice
of deficiency, disallowing $71,723 of those expenses.
1
(...continued)
to the nearest dollar.
2
Respondent conceded that petitioner is entitled to $42,648
of Schedule C expenses. Respondent further conceded that
petitioner is not liable for a sec. 6662(a) penalty.
-3-
OPINION
On the basis of documentation petitioner provided,
respondent conceded that petitioner is entitled to many of the
disallowed Schedule C expenses. Petitioner contends that he is
entitled to additional expense deductions for fuel and expenses
related to his car, which he used to travel from his home to his
workplace, the yard where his truck was parked.
Section 162(a) allows a taxpayer to deduct "all the ordinary
and necessary expenses paid or incurred * * * in carrying on any
trade or business". Deductions are a matter of legislative
grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he is
entitled to any deductions claimed. Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc.
v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992). Taxpayers bear the
burden of substantiating any deductions claimed. Hradesky v.
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 89-90 (1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d
821 (5th Cir. 1976). Taxpayers are required to maintain adequate
records sufficient to enable the Commissioner to determine their
correct tax liability. Sec. 6001; Meneguzzo v. Commissioner, 43
T.C. 824, 831-832 (1965); sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.
At trial, petitioner did not provide the Court any evidence
showing his entitlement to the Schedule C expense deductions that
remain at issue. Furthermore, petitioner may not deduct the
expenses incurred in traveling between his home and his
workplace. It is well established that expenses incurred by a
-4-
taxpayer in commuting between his home and his place of business
are personal and nondeductible. Commissioner v. Flowers, 326
U.S. 465, 473-474 (1946); Curphey v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 766,
777 (1980). Accordingly, the Court will sustain all of the
determinations in the notice of deficiency except for those
conceded by respondent.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.