T.C. Summary Opinion 2009-98
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JOHN F. KYNE, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 18227-08S. Filed June 25, 2009.
John F. Kyne, pro se.
Robert W. Mopsick, for respondent.
NIMS, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions
of section 7463 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, and this opinion
shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Unless
-2-
otherwise indicated, all 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.
Respondent determined a $3,381 deficiency in petitioner’s
Federal income tax for the 2005 tax year. The issues for
decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to deduct
medical and dental expenses of $19,045; (2) whether petitioner is
entitled to deduct charitable contributions in excess of those
respondent allowed; and (3) whether petitioner is entitled to
deduct miscellaneous itemized expenses in excess of those
respondent allowed.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are
incorporated herein by reference. Petitioner resided in New
Jersey at the time he filed his petition.
During 2005 petitioner worked as a corporate field sales
representative for Thomson West Publishing (Thomson West),
selling legal research materials to corporate legal departments
in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Thomson West’s corporate field
sales representatives were required to work from their home-based
offices and were reimbursed up to $500 per month for monthly
operating expenses and up to $150 per day for hotels, meals, and
-3-
transportation expenses. The record does not reflect the extent,
if any, to which petitioner was reimbursed by Thomson West.
Petitioner timely filed a 2005 Form 1040, U.S. Individual
Income Tax Return, in which he claimed a medical and dental
expense deduction of $19,045, a charitable contribution deduction
of $8,848, and miscellaneous itemized deductions of $35,857. The
miscellaneous itemized deductions consisted of: (1) $11,004 for
vehicle expenses; (2) $4,822 for parking fees and tolls; (3)
$14,708 for unspecified business expenses; (4) $3,256 for meal
and entertainment expenses; (5) $1,717 for job search expenses;
and (6) $350 for tax preparation fees.
Upon examination of the return, respondent determined that
petitioner had failed to substantiate most of these deductions.
On this basis, respondent disallowed the entire medical and
dental expense deduction, $7,760 of the charitable contribution
deduction, and $5,280 of the miscellaneous itemized deductions.
At trial, respondent conceded a $16,958.21 employee business
expense deduction consisting of: (1) $9,328.88 for vehicle
expenses; (2) $2,648 for parking fees and tolls; (3) $3,306.33
for “home office expenses”; and (4) $1,675 for telephone
expenses.
-4-
Discussion
Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and taxpayers
bear the burden of establishing entitlement to any claimed
deduction. Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S.
79, 84 (1992). Taxpayers must maintain records sufficient to
allow the Commissioner to determine their correct tax liability.
Sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs. Additionally,
taxpayers bear the burden of substantiating the amount and
purpose of each item they claim as a deduction. Hradesky v.
Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 89 (1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d
821 (5th Cir. 1976).
I. Medical and Dental Expenses
Section 213(a) permits a deduction for a taxpayer’s medical
and dental expenses that were paid and not compensated for by
insurance, to the extent the expenses exceed 7.5 percent of the
taxpayer’s adjusted gross income.
To substantiate these expenses, the taxpayer must furnish
the name and address of each payee and the date and amount of
each payment. Sec. 1.213-1(h), Income Tax Regs. If requested by
the Commissioner, the taxpayer must also furnish a statement or
itemized invoice identifying the patient, the type of service
rendered, and the specific purpose of the expense. Id.
Petitioner has not adequately substantiated his claimed
expenses. He submitted only a self-prepared summary of his
-5-
monthly medical and dental expenses (medical expense summary).
The medical expense summary names three of his four doctors.
However, it does not provide the address of any payee or the date
and amount of each payment. Petitioner also failed to furnish
any statements or invoices from his doctors.
When a taxpayer establishes that deductible expenses were
incurred but fails to substantiate the exact amounts, we
generally may estimate the amounts allowable if sufficient
evidence exists to provide a rational basis for the estimate.
Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930);
Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 743 (1985). Petitioner has
not provided a rational basis for an estimate because his medical
expense summary is not credible. It states petitioner’s total
expenses were $17,564.90 and thereby conflicts with the amount
claimed on the return. No explanation is given for this
discrepancy. In fact, petitioner has not offered any evidence to
corroborate any of the figures on the medical expense summary or
on the return. We are not required to accept petitioner’s self-
serving and inconsistent statements.
Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to any
deduction for medical and dental expenses.
II. Charitable Contributions
Section 170(a)(1) allows as a deduction any charitable
contribution verified under regulations prescribed by the
-6-
Secretary. For each contribution, the regulations generally
require a taxpayer to maintain a canceled check, a receipt from
the donee, or another reliable written record. Sec. 1.170A-
13(a)(1), Income Tax Regs. Factors to consider in assessing
reliability include whether the record was made contemporaneously
with the contribution and whether the taxpayer kept regular
records of contributions. Sec. 1.170A-13(a)(2)(i), Income Tax
Regs. Additionally, any charitable contribution of $250 or more
must be further substantiated by “a contemporaneous written
acknowledgment of the contribution by the donee organization”.
Sec. 170(f)(8)(A).
In support of his claimed deduction, petitioner provided a
self-prepared list of his charitable contributions, debit card
statements, and a canceled check for $25 to the Memorial Sloan-
Kettering Cancer Center. The statements listed donations of $250
and $200 to the Red Cross.
While the canceled check constitutes adequate substantiation
of the contribution under certain circumstances, the statements
and list do not. We do not find petitioner’s list to be a
reliable written record. There is no evidence in the record that
indicates the list was prepared contemporaneously or that
petitioner routinely kept records of his contributions.
Furthermore, we question the accuracy of the list because
petitioner declared his total charitable contributions to be
-7-
different amounts on three different occasions. Petitioner first
claimed a deduction of $8,848 on his return but admitted at trial
that this figure was inaccurate: “my accountant who was doing my
taxes unfortunately got a little creative, and unfortunately I
went along with him.” Petitioner subsequently provided
respondent with a list of contributions, which states the total
amount as $1,088. However, petitioner’s own testimony
contradicts this figure as well. Petitioner testified that he
made charitable contributions of only $475.
Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s disallowance of all but
$1,088 of petitioner’s $8,848 claimed charitable contribution
deduction.
III. Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions
Section 162(a) allows a taxpayer to deduct all ordinary and
necessary business expenses paid or incurred during the taxable
year. A taxpayer’s personal or living expenses are not
deductible. Sec. 262.
Petitioner claimed $35,857 of miscellaneous itemized
deductions for vehicle expenses, parking fees and tolls,
unspecified business expenses, meal and entertainment expenses,
job search expenses, and tax preparation expenses. On audit
respondent allowed $30,577 of these deductions but did not
specify which items were specifically disallowed.
-8-
A. Vehicle Expenses
Section 274(d) prohibits us from making estimating a
taxpayer’s travel, entertainment, gift, and “listed property”
(e.g., automobiles and other property used for transportation)
expenses. Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 827 (1968),
affd. per curiam 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969); sec. 1.274-5T(a),
Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6, 1985).
To deduct these expenses, the taxpayer must substantiate either
by adequate records or by sufficient evidence corroborating the
taxpayer’s own statement: (A) The amount of the expense; (B) the
time and place the expense was incurred; (C) the business purpose
of the expense; and (D) in the case of an entertainment or gift
expense, the business relationship to the taxpayer of each
expense incurred. Sec. 274(d). Substantiation by adequate
records requires the taxpayer to maintain an account book, diary,
log, statement of expense, trip sheets, or similar record
prepared contemporaneously with the expenditure and documentary
evidence (e.g., receipts or bills) of certain expenditures. Sec.
1.274-5(c)(2)(iii), Income Tax Regs.; sec. 1.274-5T(c)(2),
Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46017 (Nov. 6, 1985).
Substantiation by other sufficient evidence requires the
production of corroborative evidence in support of the taxpayer’s
-9-
statement specifically detailing the required elements. Sec.
1.274-5T(c)(3), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46020
(Nov. 6, 1985).
The Commissioner may establish mileage allowances deemed to
substantiate the amount of listed property expenses. Sec. 1.274-
5(j)(2), Income Tax Regs. However, the taxpayer is still
required to substantiate the remaining elements of time, place,
and business purpose. Id.; see Rev. Proc. 2004-64, sec. 9.02,
2004-2 C.B. 898, 904. In 2005, the specific mileage allowance
was 40.5 cents a mile for the first 8 months and 48.5 cents for
the last 4 months. Rev. Proc. 2004-64, sec. 5.01, 2004-2 C.B. at
900, as modified by Announcement 2005-71, 2005-2 C.B. 714.
Petitioner claimed a vehicle expense deduction of $11,004 on
his return. However, his 2005 expense summary reported a vehicle
expense of only $10,571 based on the mileage allowances in effect
for 2005. In support of that calculation, petitioner submitted a
log of his daily business travel. For each entry, the log
usually indicated the city petitioner visited, the person he met,
the company for whom that person worked, and the distance
petitioner drove. While the log establishes the time and place
of petitioner’s vehicle expenses, it does not provide the
business purpose of the expenses and therefore does not satisfy
-10-
the strict substantiation requirements of section 274(d).
Petitioner is entitled only to the $9,328.88 of vehicle expenses
respondent conceded.
B. Parking Fees and Tolls
A taxpayer using the mileage allowance may also deduct
parking fees and tolls. Rev. Proc. 2004-64, sec. 5.04, 2004-2
C.B. at 900. Petitioner claimed a $4,822 deduction for parking
fees and tolls. However, his 2005 expense summary reported that
he spent $2,617, and he did not present any evidence that his
expenses exceeded the $2,648 respondent conceded. Any excess is
disallowed.
C. Unspecified Business Expenses
Petitioner claimed unspecified business expenses of $14,708.
Petitioner’s 2005 expense summary states that he spent $2,578 for
telephone service, $7,500 for rent, $540 for monthly Internet
service, $1,794 for utilities, and $13,877 for “business
expenses”. The record indicates that petitioner’s claimed
“business expenses” comprised office supplies, gifts to
prospective clients, subscriptions to newspapers and magazines,
copying, postage, tolls (discussed supra), and meals and
entertainment expenses (discussed infra). Petitioner did not
explain how he computed the $14,708 figure he claimed as a
deduction on his return.
-11-
Petitioner submitted a summary of his telephone expenses
which indicated that he spent $1,127 for cellular telephone
service from Cingular, $1,311 business telephone service from
Verizon, and $140 business telephone service from Quest.
Petitioner documented only $800 of payments to Verizon. He did
not substantiate any payments to Quest or Cingular.
Cellular telephones are included in the definition of
“listed property”, sec. 280F(d)(4)(A)(v), and are subject to the
strict substantiation requirements of section 274(d). We
therefore would not include petitioner’s cellular telephone
expenses in an estimate of his telephone expenses. In addition,
any expense for basic local telephone service with respect to the
first telephone line to a residence is treated as a nondeductible
personal expense. Sec. 262(b). However, any estimate is
unnecessary because respondent has conceded an amount greater
than the purported payments to Verizon and Quest. Petitioner is
not entitled to a deduction greater than that amount.
Petitioner also provided canceled checks which substantiated
payments of $6,875 for rent and $1,794 for utilities in 2005. He
did not present any documentation of his Internet expenses.
Section 280A(c)(1) permits the deduction of expenses
allocable to a portion of a dwelling unit that is used
exclusively and on a regular basis as either (1) the principal
place of business for the taxpayer’s trade or business, or (2) a
-12-
place of business that is used by clients or customers in meeting
or dealing with the taxpayer in the normal course of the
taxpayer’s trade or business.
Petitioner failed to establish what portion of the house was
used as a home office. Accordingly, he is not entitled to a home
office deduction greater than the $3,306.33 respondent allowed.
Petitioner submitted debit card statements in support of his
expenses for business gifts, office supplies, newspaper and
magazine subscriptions, copying, and postage. Those statements
contradict his expense summaries and establish that he did not
incur $13,877 in “business expenses”. The highlighted entries in
the statements add up to far less than that amount, even with the
inclusion of charges for meals, entertainment, and tolls. In
addition, petitioner reported several newspaper and magazine
subscriptions on his business expense summary, but the statements
evidence only a single subscription to the Star Ledger. As to
petitioner’s gift expenses, the statements do not meet the
substantiation requirements under section 274(d) because they do
not provide a description of the gift, the business purpose of
the gift, and the recipient’s business relationship to
petitioner. See sec. 1.274-5T(b)(5), Temporary Income Tax Regs.,
50 Fed. Reg. 46016 (Nov. 6, 1985).
-13-
While we believe that petitioner did incur some expenses for
office supplies, we note that petitioner was entitled to partial
reimbursement from his employer of up to $500 per month for his
monthly operating expenses. Petitioner has not presented any
evidence that these expenses exceeded that amount.
For these reasons, petitioner is not entitled to a deduction
for his unspecified business expenses greater than the amounts
respondent conceded for telephone and “home office” expenses.
D. Meals and Entertainment
On his return, petitioner claimed he incurred meals and
entertainment expenses of $6,511, giving rise to a $3,256
deduction. Section 274(d) requires a taxpayer to substantiate
the amount, time, place, and business purpose of these expenses
and the business relationship to the persons entertained. In
addition to his debit card statements, petitioner provided a
calendar which indicated the person he met, the restaurant at
which they ate, and how much he spent. We find the calendar to
be wholly unreliable. Petitioner routinely recorded amounts much
greater than the amounts actually charged on his debit card.
Lacking credible documentation of his expenses, petitioner has
thus failed to substantiate any of his meals and entertainment
expenses under section 274(d).
-14-
E. Job Search Expenses
Job search expenses are deductible under section 162(a) so
long as the search is for employment in the same trade or
business as that in which the taxpayer is currently engaged, or
if the taxpayer is unemployed, that in which he was most recently
engaged. See Primuth v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 374, 379 (1970).
Expenses for a search in a different type of trade or business
are not deductible. See Frank v. Commissioner, 20 T.C. 511, 513
(1953).
Petitioner claimed $1,717 of job search expenses on his
return. His debit card statements included highlighted entries
for fax services and Internet access, but he has not produced any
evidence that these related to a job search or that such a search
was in the same trade or business as that in which he is or was
currently engaged. Furthermore, his 2005 expense summary lists
his job search expenses as $267 and thus indicates he did not
incur the amount claimed on his return, which is therefore
disallowed.
F. Tax Preparation Expenses
Petitioner testified that he relied on an accountant in
preparing his return, but he has provided no evidence to
corroborate that testimony. Neither his expense summaries nor
his debit card statements contain any entries for tax return
preparation expenses. We cannot verify petitioner’s testimony
-15-
from his Form 1040 because the page that would contain the return
preparer’s signature was omitted. Petitioner is therefore not
entitled to a deduction for his tax preparation expenses.
G. Conclusion
Petitioner has not substantiated any expenses in excess of
the $30,577 respondent allowed on audit. Accordingly, we uphold
respondent’s determination regarding petitioner’s miscellaneous
itemized deductions.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.