- 13 -
On this record, the Court holds that petitioner is not
entitled to dependency exemptions for Adam, Amanda, and Nathan
for 1994, 1995, or 1996. Consequently, respondent is sustained
on this issue.
The second issue is whether petitioner is entitled to
itemized deductions for 1994 in excess of that allowed by
respondent. On Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, of his 1994
return, petitioner claimed miscellaneous itemized deductions
subject to the 2-percent-of-adjusted-gross-income limitation of
section 67(a) for job hunting expenses totaling $4,600. These
expenses consisted of $3,269 for mileage expenses (11,271 miles
at 29 cents per mile), telephone expenses of $1,152 (long
distance and cellular), vocational materials of $98, postage of
$52, and printing of $29. Respondent disallowed a portion of
these expenses, including $358 for mileage expenses, $384 for
telephone expenses, $40 for vocational material expenses, and $52
for postage expenses.4
Petitioner presented no documentary evidence to show he
actually incurred any of the aforementioned expenses disallowed
by respondent. It is well established that this Court is not
4
At trial, respondent conceded that, although the notice of
deficiency disallowed $876 in itemized deductions, this was due
to a mathematical error, and the correct amount of disallowed
itemized expenses should have been $834. Thus, respondent
conceded that petitioner was entitled to an additional $42 of
miscellaneous itemized deductions.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011