Daniela Aldea - Page 10




                                       - 10 -                                         
          all of petitioner’s work sites were south of Sacramento.                    
               Accordingly, we uphold respondent’s determination that                 
          petitioner is not entitled to deduct automobile expenses for                
          transportation to her temporary jobsites.                                   
          Schedule C Automobile Expenses                                              
               Respondent contends petitioner is not entitled to a                    
          deduction for $809 of the $1,801 in car and truck expenses she              
          claimed on her 1995 Schedule C because she has not substantiated            
          the mileage she drove for her Amway activities, nor has she                 
          presented evidence of the total miles she drove during 1995.                
          Petitioner maintains that she has substantiated mileage from her            
          Amway activity, and thus is entitled to a deduction for the full            
          $1,801 she claimed on her return.                                           
               Section 274(d) imposes stringent substantiation requirements           
          for claimed deductions relating to the use of “listed property”,            
          which is defined under section 280F(d)(4)(A)(i) to include                  
          passenger automobiles.  Under this provision, any deduction                 
          claimed with respect to the use of a passenger automobile will be           
          disallowed unless the taxpayer substantiates specified elements             
          of the use by adequate records or by sufficient evidence                    
          corroborating the taxpayer’s own statement.  See sec. 274(d);               
          sec. 1.274-5T(c)(1), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg.               
          46018 (Nov. 6, 1985).  These substantiation requirements                    
          supersede the doctrine found in Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d              







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011