- 14 -
that he is entitled to deduct travel and travel related expenses
incurred in California in the pursuit of his business as a
contract engineer. Respondent asserts that petitioner did not
maintain a tax home during 1989. In addition, respondent
contends that petitioner's claimed expenses are not ordinary and
necessary business expenses under section 162 and that petitioner
has failed to meet the substantiation requirements of section
274(d).
Petitioner testified that he incurred the claimed business
expenses and that he provided the required substantiation to the
Internal Revenue Service. Petitioner, however, has failed to
corroborate his testimony. The record is barren of the type of
substantiation required by section 274(d). Petitioner did not
provide the Court with any records or other evidence setting
forth the amount, time, place, and business purpose of the
expenditures claimed. See sec. 1.274-5, Income Tax Regs. So,
even if the Court were to assume, arguendo, that petitioner's
travel and travel related expenditures are deductible under
section 162(a)(2), petitioner's failure to substantiate any of
those expenses pursuant to section 274(d) requires disallowance
of the claimed deduction. Thus, respondent's adjustment
increasing petitioner's taxable income as a result of the
disallowed employee business expense deduction is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011