- 13 -
lack of business purpose on the part of Mrs. Thorpe in attending
the various conferences. On brief, respondent argues that Mrs.
Thorpe's presence at the conventions was primarily a personal
benefit to her rather than a business purpose that benefited
ETCO. Respondent's argument regarding lack of substantiation was
not meaningfully addressed until the reply brief was filed.
Respondent has isolated a small percentage of travel expenses
that has been attributed specifically to Mrs. Thorpe. It would
be difficult to imagine how respondent could attribute an exact
amount of expenses to Mrs. Thorpe without any substantiation of
the expenses in the first place. Further, where Mr. and Mrs.
Thorpe attended the conferences together, certain expenses, such
as meals and lodging, must have been substantiated for Mr. Thorpe
on the same documentation as would have been used for Mrs.
Thorpe. Respondent does not question the substantiation of Mr.
Thorpe's travel expenses. Under these circumstances, we find
that respondent's argument regarding lack of substantiation is
without merit.
With respect to the automobiles, the Mercury and the Lincoln
are listed property under section 280F(d)(4)(A)(i) because they
are passenger automobiles. A taxpayer may not deduct automobile
expenses, unless he or she substantiates by adequate records or
by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer's own statement
the amount, time and place, and business purpose of the expense.
Sec. 274(d)(4).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011