- 10 -
of any patients who were attracted to * * * [the] medical
practice by virtue of the leasing of the Rolls Royce.
Id.
With regard to the instant case, the corporate petitioner has
not established that the Rolls Royce resulted in patient referrals.
In this regard, there was no testimony from any referring physician
that business was sent to Roy, Inc. because of the Rolls Royce.5
See Henry v. Commissioner, supra at 884. Additionally, Mohan Roy's
testimony that he thought the Rolls Royce would discourage patient
referrals and thus sought to sell it at an appropriate time
undermines any claim that the automobile was an ordinary and
necessary expense to Roy, Inc. The limited use of the Rolls Royce
(about 5,000 miles during 4 years) and the fact that the vehicle
was principally garaged at the Roys' personal residence also
defeats the corporate petitioner's claim that the expenses were
ordinary and necessary.
Further, the corporate petitioner has not substantiated the
business use of the Rolls Royce, pursuant to section 274(d), for
the years in issue. To satisfy the substantiation requirements,
taxpayers must produce records that detail the use of automobiles
for business purposes through mileage logs or other business
records which corroborate the taxpayers' own testimony. Sec.
5 Roy, Inc.'s former office manager testified that she
was unaware of any patients referred to Roy, Inc. because of
Mohan Roy's use of the Rolls Royce.
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