Les B. Martin and Millie A. Martin - Page 13

                                        -13-                                          
               Petitioners also claim for 1989 $774 as a deduction for                
          unreimbursed employee business expenses.  These expenses are for            
          "[taking] employees for refreshments after work to summarize the            
          events from the day and plan the next day".                                 
               Ordinary and necessary business expenses generally may not be          
          deducted under section 162(a) if reimbursement is available from a          
          taxpayer's employer.  Lucas v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 1, 7 (1982).           
          Mr. Martin testified that most of the expenses he incurred for              
          taking employees for refreshments after work were submitted to and          
          reimbursed by his employer, but that he was required to "pocket             
          [the claimed expenses] because of budget constraints".  Petitioners         
          presented no other evidence in this regard.                                 


               We are not convinced that had Mr. Martin sought reimbursement          
          for the claimed "pocketed" expenses in 1989, his request would have         
          been denied.  Accordingly, except for the country club fees and             
          expenses, we sustain respondent's disallowance of petitioners'              
          claimed deductions for unreimbursed employee business expenses for          
          1989.                                                                       
          Investment Expenses                                                         
               The next matter for our attention is whether petitioners are           
          entitled to deduct $348 in investment expenses for 1989. The                
          expenses were incurred in Mr. Martin's investigating publicly held          
          companies with a view towards the possible purchase of their stock.         
          Respondent disallowed a deduction for these costs on the ground             




Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011