Sheriel L. Sexcius - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         

               well as security service on the home * * * and the                     
               installation of five new doors for increased security.                 
               * * *                                                                  
          Petitioner's assertion is contrary to well-established law.                 
          Section 262 specifically precludes deductions for personal,                 
          living, or family expenses.  Section 1.262-1(b), Income Tax                 
          Regs., lists examples of disallowed expenses, including the types           
          claimed by petitioner.  To the extent that petitioner also claims           
          that the home is "an alternative office", she has not satisfied             
          any of the requirements of section 280A(c).                                 
               Petitioner's demonstrated penchant for claiming                        
          nondeductible personal expenses as business expenses undermines             
          the reliability of her assertions with respect to supplies and              
          other expenses that normally would be deductible.  She asks that            
          the Court estimate such expenses under the doctrine of Cohan v.             
          Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930).  That case suggests               
          that we make an allowance "bearing heavily * * * upon the                   
          taxpayer whose inexactitude is of * * * [her] own making."  Id.             
          at 544.  We conclude that petitioner is entitled to deduct $500             
          on Schedule C for supplies and services relating to her tutoring            
          and counseling activity.  There is no basis for making any                  
          estimate of deductions on Schedule A not allowed by respondent.             
               Our discussion of the lack of evidence substantiating                  
          petitioner's right to the deductions that she claimed on her                
          return leads also to the conclusion that petitioner underpaid her           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011