- 11 -
Moving Expenses
Petitioner claimed $3,184 for moving expenses associated
with moves to Los Angeles and to Hong Kong, of which $500 is
estimated to relate to his move to Los Angeles.9 Respondent
disputes whether petitioner has substantiated payment of the
claimed expenditures and whether petitioner has met the
requirements for deductibility under section 217.
Respondent's position regarding the failure to substantiate
these expenses is well taken. Other than the bare numbers
claimed on the Form 3903F attached to his return, petitioner
provided no evidence that would substantiate these amounts or
offer a basis on which the Court could make an estimate under the
Cohan10 rule, notwithstanding the fact that the Court left the
record open an additional 30 days after the trial for petitioner
to submit such evidence and, indeed, reopened the record for
receipt of evidence on other matters. Moreover, with respect to
the evidence that petitioner did provide, such evidence either
demonstrates that the requirements of section 217 were not met
(in the case of certain pre-move househunting expenses claimed on
the return) or is insufficient to show that the requirements of
9Some portion of the expenses claimed was for "Pre-move
Househunting Expenses and Temporary Quarters", but the exact
amount cannot be ascertained because of the haphazard placement
of figures on the Form 3903F submitted with petitioner's return.
10Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011