- 42 -
amount of $3,800 for 1990. Mr. Dillon computed petitioner's
deduction for truck expenses based on petitioner's statement that
he put approximately 15,000 business miles on the vehicle during
1990. Respondent disallowed petitioner's deduction for the truck
expenses on the basis of petitioner's inability to substantiate
them. Respondent failed, however, to assert the applicability of
section 274(d)(4), which imposes strict substantiation
requirements with respect to certain listed property, defined in
section 280F(d)(4)(A) to include passenger automobiles. Section
280F(d)(5)(A) defines the term "passenger automobile" to mean any
four-wheeled vehicle (i) which is manufactured primarily for use
on public streets, roads, and highways, and (ii) which is rated
at 6,000 pounds unloaded gross vehicle weight or less. In the
case of a truck, section 280F(d)(5)(A)(ii) is to be applied by
substituting "gross vehicle weight" for "unloaded gross vehicle
weight". Sec. 280F(d)(5).
We treat respondent's failure to argue that section
274(d)(4) is applicable in the instant case as a concession that
it does not apply to petitioner's vehicle. Accordingly, we
decline to apply the strict substantiation requirements imposed
by section 274(d)(4) and look instead to the rule of Cohan v.
Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930), to decide the amount of
petitioner's truck expenses. Bearing heavily against petitioner,
whose inexactitude is of his own making, we find that petitioner
Page: Previous 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011