-29-
Respondent next asks us to find that petitioner has not
adequately substantiated under section 274(d) his travel
expenses. Section 274(d) overrides the Cohan doctrine with
respect to expenses of travel away from home (including meals and
lodging). See Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 827-828
(1968), affd. per curiam 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969); sec. 1.274-
5T(a), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6,
1985). A taxpayer must substantiate the amount, time, place, and
business purpose of the expenditures, using adequate records or
sufficient evidence corroborating his own statement. See sec.
1.274-5T(c)(1), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46016
(Nov. 6, 1985).
Respondent conceded at trial that petitioner substantiated
the amount, time, and place, but not the business purpose, of his
travel expenses. In view of our holding that petitioner's inter-
view expenses are nondeductible personal expenses, we find that
his trips to Nevada served a dual purpose. This dual purpose
warrants an allocation of travel expenses between business and
nonbusiness use. While the evidence in this case does not permit
an exact allocation, there is a basis for some allowance–if
necessary, by drawing upon petiitoner’s own method of allocating
his interview expenses. Petitioner characterized the money he
paid to prostitutes as business related if he incorporated the
material from the interviews in his book. According to
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011