- 6 -
and special shoes. This is particularly troubling as the amount
claimed appears to be large.
If a taxpayer has established that deductible expenses were
incurred but has not established the amount of such expenses, we
may estimate the amount allowable, bearing heavily if we so
choose upon the taxpayer whose inexactitude is of his own making.
See Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930).
However, there must be evidence in the record that provides a
rational basis for our estimate. See Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85
T.C. 731, 742-743 (1985).
Although petitioner testified that he purchased two pairs of
shoes for work during the year at issue, he also testified that
he preferred athletic shoes of the type that is suitable for use
outside of his work environment. This type of shoe in this
circumstance does not satisfy the tripartite test for deduction.
Petitioner testified that he spent "at least $50 every two to
three months" on uniform acquisition. He also testified that,
because he was required to wear a clean uniform every day, he
spent "$15 to $20" every 2 weeks on laundry.
The amounts that petitioner testified to at trial do not add
up to $2,400. Nonetheless, we are satisfied that petitioner did
incur some deductible expenses for acquiring and maintaining his
uniforms and, using our judgment, allow a deduction in the amount
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011