- 26 -
contemporaneous-appearing records have succeeded only in
destroying what modicum of credibility his testimony might
otherwise have had.8
Petitioner has wholly failed to meet the requirements of
section 274(d) with respect to the business meal expenses. As a
result, he is not permitted to deduct any of his claimed business
meal expenses.
Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to examine
the details of section 162(a) with respect to these expenses.
We hold for respondent on this issue.
B. Other Business Expenses
See supra tables 2 and 3 for petitioner’s other claimed
business expenses. The “Other business expenses” category on
table 2 evidently consists of telephone expenses.
Expenses incurred in going from home to work, and from work
to home, are generally treated as nondeductible personal
expenses. Sec. 262; Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U.S. 465
(1946); Green v. Commissioner, 59 T.C. 456, 458 (1972), secs.
1.262-1(b)(5), 1.162-2(e), Income Tax Regs. However, expenses
8
Our qualms about the credibility of petitioner’s testimony
may be illustrated by his statements about the number of days he
worked. When confronted with his diary, he testified that he
worked “well over 300 days.” When confronted with his tax
return, he testified that “that was a guess when I said 300”, and
that he probably went to work about 250 days in 1987. When asked
how to reconcile his diary and his tax return, he responded--
I don’t know, Your Honor, probably between 250 and 300.
I can’t be certain.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011