T.C. Summary Opinion 2009-1
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ROBERT RUIZ, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 16519-07S. Filed January 5, 2009.
Robert Ruiz, pro se.
Nathan C. Johnston and Jordan Musen, for respondent.
GERBER, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the
provisions of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code in
effect when the petition was filed. Pursuant to section 7463(b),
the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court,
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for 2005, the taxable year in
issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other
case. Respondent determined a $2,062 income tax deficiency for
petitioner’s 2005 tax year. The deficiency is solely
attributable to respondent’s disallowance of certain deductions.
We consider whether petitioner is entitled to certain job-related
deductions claimed on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, of his
2005 tax return.2
Background
Petitioner resided in California at the time his petition
was filed. During 2005 petitioner was a high school mathematics
teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District. As part of
his official duties he also coached the girls’ softball team,
which was an official school program. The school system provided
a $1,500 budget for the softball program, which did not cover all
of its expenses for the program. Petitioner used the $1,500 to
purchase the catcher’s equipment and safety items such as batting
helmets. The students were financially unable to purchase
uniforms and equipment. To make up the shortfall, petitioner and
other staff members purchased and donated various equipment and
other items for the team and team members.
Petitioner purchased and donated uniforms for the team at a
cost of $1,083.37. In addition, petitioner purchased other items
2
Respondent conceded that petitioner is entitled to a $250
deduction for the preparation of his 2005 tax return.
- 3 -
including balls, bats, practice tees, and related softball
equipment for a total of $1,092.78. In addition to the equipment
for the softball team, petitioner purchased $311.42 of supplies,
including a bookcase, DVDs, and electronic materials that were
needed to teach mathematics in the high school classroom.
In connection with the softball activity, petitioner, other
staff members, and parents would pitch in to purchase food for
the team after a game. Typically, the food was provided after
all-day tournaments. During 2005 petitioner paid $1,643.40 for
food and related items for the team members after games, both at
petitioner’s school grounds and at other school teams’ grounds.
Petitioner paid union dues of $635.04 during 2005. The
school system was a union shop, and petitioner was a union
member.
Petitioner claimed $8,115 for business automobile mileage
and $520 for parking fees during 2005. At trial petitioner
conceded the deduction for $520 in parking fees. With respect to
the $8,115 claimed for automobile mileage, petitioner maintained
a log reflecting the total miles for each month of 2005 along
with a breakdown of the distances and the places to which he
drove. The mileage consisted of, to a limited extent, driving
his automobile to games when the school bus was not available
and, more often, transporting team members from the game sites to
their homes, which was necessary because it was late in the
- 4 -
evening and there were safety issues that dictated that the team
members be accompanied home.
None of petitioner’s expenditures in connection with his
coaching and teaching were reimbursed by the school district.
Discussion
In general, the Commissioner’s determinations in a notice of
deficiency are presumed correct. Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S.
111, 115 (1933). In pertinent part, Rule 142(a)(1) provides the
general rule that “The burden of proof shall be upon the
petitioner”. Petitioner bears the burden of showing entitlement
to the disallowed deductions, and no question was raised in this
case about whether the burden was shifted to respondent. See
sec. 7491.
With respect to the items in dispute, respondent determined
that petitioner failed to substantiate or to show the employee
business purpose of certain claimed expenditures. Secs. 162,
212. Taxpayers are required to maintain records sufficient to
permit the verification of income and expenses. Sec. 6001. As a
general rule, if the trial record provides sufficient evidence
that the taxpayer has incurred a deductible expense, but the
taxpayer is unable to fully substantiate the precise amount of
the deduction, the Court may estimate the amount of the
deductible expense and allow a deduction to that extent. Cohan
v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930). Such
- 5 -
estimates are to be made bearing heavily against the taxpayer
whose inexactitude in substantiating the amount of the expense
is of his own making. Id. at 544. For the Court to estimate the
amount of an expense there must be some basis upon which an
estimate may be made. Vanicek v Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 742-
743 (1985).
Petitioner was a mathematics teacher and girls’ softball
coach in the Los Angeles high school system. The system provided
supplies and a limited budget for the athletic program. The
supplies and budget provided were insufficient to minimally
operate the athletic program or for petitioner to properly teach
mathematics. Petitioner purchased supplies and athletic
equipment that were used in teaching and for the athletic
program. When petitioner left his teaching and coaching position
at that school, he left all of the unused equipment and supplies.
Petitioner used his automobile in support of the athletic program
and claimed the mileage at the rate prescribed by respondent.
Petitioner also claimed the cost of meals provided to softball
team members after the games. Finally, petitioner claimed
amounts for professional subscriptions, union dues, and tax
return preparation. The total amount claimed for all of the
above-described items for 2005 was $14,622. Petitioner reduced
that amount by $873 to $13,749 to account for the 2-percent
threshold on employee job expenses when claimed as an itemized
- 6 -
deduction on Schedule A. Respondent disallowed the entire
deduction.
Initially, we point out that respondent conceded that
petitioner is entitled to $250 for the preparation of his 2005
income tax return. We hold that petitioner’s union dues of
$635.04 are deductible. Petitioner also claimed $315 for
professional subscriptions, but he did not provide substantiation
or pursue this matter at trial. Accordingly, petitioner is not
entitled to the $315 deduction.
Overall, petitioner sufficiently substantiated the purchase
of $2,487.55 of items used for teaching mathematics and operating
the softball program. Petitioner was not reimbursed for any of
these items and they were ordinary, and necessary to the basic
operation of the educational and sports programs. Accordingly,
petitioner is entitled to claim, subject to the 2-percent
threshold, an itemized deduction of $2,487.55.
Petitioner also substantiated $1,643.40 for food and related
items for the team members after games. With respect to these
expenditures, it was not necessary to the operation of the
softball program that banquets be held following games. We
compliment petitioner’s generosity but must hold that he is
not entitled to deduct these expenditures as they do not
constitute ordinary and necessary expenses within the meaning of
section 162.
- 7 -
Concerning the softball program, petitioner claimed $8,115
for mileage. In connection with attending seminars petitioner
also claimed $520 for parking fees, but he has conceded that
item. The substantiation of the use of listed property, such as
an automobile, is subject to more rigorous requirements and is
not allowable without adequate records. See secs. 274(d)(4),
280F(d)(4)(A)(i). In that regard, petitioner provided a log that
reflects his mileage to and from various softball games and
events and the mileage connected with driving softball team
members home after games and practice on account of safety
precautions. Because the games and events were repetitive,
petitioner was able to show the round trip mileage to each
location, then account for the trips to each location on a
month-by-month basis. With respect to the daily mileage
connected with driving team members home after practice and local
games, petitioner’s methodology was less exact making it
difficult to ascertain the correctness of the mileage claimed.
Overall, petitioner’s log reflected over 17,000 miles for
2005, which converted, at the standard mileage rates, to an
$8,115 deduction claimed for 2005. Almost 13,000 of the more
than 17,000 miles claimed for 2005 were connected with the daily
driving of team members to their homes. In the final analysis,
petitioner’s substantiation is sufficient to permit the allowance
of 4,500 miles that were ordinary and necessary business miles.
- 8 -
We further hold that 3,000 of the miles were driven before
September 1, 2005, and the remaining 1,500 were driven after
August 31, 2005. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is
entitled to deduct $1,9433 for business mileage during 2005.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
3
Mileage before Sept. 1, 2005, has a 40.5-cent standard
mileage rate, whereas mileage after Aug. 31, 2005, has a
48.5-cent standard mileage rate.