Sherri A. Mulne a.k.a. Sherri A. Shannon - Page 5

                                                - 5 -                                                  

            to off-site parking charges (i.e., charges incurred to attend                              
            meetings or visit customers away from the downtown office) or                              
            whether such charges included parking at the downtown office.                              
            Petitioner was unaware that she possibly could be reimbursed for                           
            parking at the downtown office.  Petitioner claimed a Schedule A                           
            deduction for parking of $1,254.                                                           
                  Section 162(a) allows a deduction for all ordinary and                               
            necessary expenses incurred in carrying on a trade or business.                            
            The performance of services as an employee constitutes a trade or                          
            business.  O'Malley v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 352, 363-364 (1988).                          
            An ordinary expense is one that is common and acceptable in the                            
            particular business.  Welch v. Helvering, supra at 113-114.  A                             
            necessary expense is an expense that is appropriate and helpful                            
            in carrying on the trade or business.  Heineman v. Commissioner,                           
            82 T.C. 538, 543 (1984).                                                                   
                  When an employee has a right to reimbursement for                                    
            expenditures related to her status as an employee, but fails to                            
            claim such reimbursement, the employee's expenses are not                                  
            deductible because the employee's expenditures are not                                     
            "necessary"; i.e., it is not necessary for an employee to remain                           
            unreimbursed for expenses to the extent he or she could have been                          
            reimbursed.  Orvis v. Commissioner, 788 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir.                                
            1986), affg. a Memorandum Opinion of this Court; Lucas v.                                  
            Commissioner, 79 T.C. 1, 7 (1982); Kennelly v. Commissioner, 56                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011