-10-
In contrast to commuting, automobile expenses incurred by
petitioner in obtaining supplies may be deductible. However,
those expenses would not be deductible if petitioner merely
obtained supplies while commuting to work. See Mazzotta v.
Commissioner, 57 T.C. 427 (1971), affd. per curiam 465 F.2d 1399
(2d Cir. 1972), affd. without published opinion 467 F.2d 943 (2d
Cir. 1972). Assuming that petitioner obtained supplies
independent of his morning or afternoon commute,3 then, in order
to be entitled to any deduction, petitioner would have to meet
the strict substantiation requirements of section 274(d).
At trial, petitioners did not introduce any records
pertaining to automobile-related expenses, much less the type of
records necessary to substantiate the claimed deductions. See
sec. 274(d). Rather, petitioners presented only unsupported
testimony as evidence of the claimed deductions. Further,
petitioners did not introduce documentation demonstrating that an
automobile was leased or that payments were made on such a lease.
See Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158,
1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947). This
deficiency in the record, for which petitioners must accept
responsibility, precludes an allowance for any automobile-related
expense in excess of the amount allowed by respondent.
3 The $98 of the "Car & Truck" deduction allowed by
respondent represents 350 business miles at the standard rate of
$0.28 per mile for trips made to purchase supplies.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011