- 14 -
(1946). Petitioners have not convinced us that the pickup truck
was otherwise used for business purposes during the year in
issue. Accordingly, petitioners are not entitled to an
additional deduction for automobile expenses.
D. Insurance Expense Deduction
On the Schedule C, petitioners claimed a $1,475 insurance
expense deduction that was disallowed in the notice of
deficiency. A portion of the deduction relates to the cost of
insurance on petitioner's pickup truck. According to petitioner,
the balance of the deduction relates to some form of liability
insurance that petitioner was required to have in connection with
the rental of the airport space that he used as his classroom.
As indicated above, section 162 allows a deduction for ordinary
and necessary expenses incurred in connection with a trade or
business. Sec. 162(a). No deduction under section 162 is
allowed for insurance with respect to property that is not used
in a trade or business. Edgar v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-
524; Lenington v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1966-264.
Petitioner has not presented the Court with any evidence to
show what type of insurance policy he acquired in connection with
the rental of the classroom, nor did he explain why such coverage
was necessary. As previously discussed, petitioners have failed
to prove that petitioner's pickup truck was used in connection
with his Schedule C business. Accordingly, we find that payments
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011