Mary T. King and Fatai O. King - Page 15
Legal Research Home >
US Tax Court > 2000 > Mary T. King and Fatai O. King - Page 15
- 15 -
At trial, petitioner stated that he was not claiming the
expenditure reflected on check No. 1357 in the amount of
$15 or the expenditure reflected on check No. 1709 in the
amount of $80. The last unagreed item, check No. 1665 made
payable to Pennsylvania Revenue Department in the amount of
$27, was a payment for State income tax. Because
petitioners did not itemize deductions, they are not
entitled to a deduction for that expenditure. Accordingly,
we agree with respondent that petitioners are entitled to a
deduction in the aggregate amount of $930.90 for payments
of taxes and licenses.
Petitioners claim a deduction for payments made to
PECO for the electricity used at petitioner’s newsstands.
In support thereof, petitioners introduced 11 checks
payable to PECO in the aggregate amount of $450.45.
Respondent notes that one of those checks, check No. 1629,
in the amount of $50, was returned by the bank without
payment for “non-sufficient funds”. Accordingly,
respondent argues, “petitioners provided $400.45 of
substantiation for electricity expense.” We agree with
respondent that petitioners have substantiated electricity
expenses of $400.45.
Petitioners also claim a deduction for telephone
expenses in the aggregate amount of $1,377.81. In support
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011