- 18 -
inherently personal in nature, including: The cost of his
family's dental work; the cost of his daughter's college
education, Ates v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1985-469; personal
grooming expenses, Hynes v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1266, 1289-1292
(1980); and the cost of a television used in his home, O'Connor
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-444; sec. 1.262-1(b)(9), Income
Tax Regs. These expenses are nondeductible. With respect to the
remaining expenditures, petitioner's testimony was vague and
self-serving. As petitioner has failed to specify the business
purpose of any item of expense, we sustain respondent's
determination disallowing deductions for all research expenses.
(H) Telephone Expenses
Petitioner claims deductions for telephone expenses.
Petitioner testified that one telephone line was located at his
residence. Section 262(b) provides that the cost of basic local
telephone service provided to the first telephone line at the
taxpayer's residence is a nondeductible expense. Furthermore,
petitioner has refused to provide details regarding the nature of
long distance calls, invoking the First Amendment. As discussed
supra, we rejected petitioner's arguments concerning
constitutional violations, and we accordingly uphold respondent's
disallowance of all telephone expenses.
(I) Charitable Contributions
During 1990, petitioner contributed $75 to a public radio
station and $35 to the Roman Catholic Church. Generally,
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011