Marvin L. Barmes and Barbara J. Barmes - Page 9




                                                - 9 -                                                  
            for the proposition that the cost of travel between a taxpayer’s                           
            two places of business is business travel.  Petitioners’ reliance                          
            on Heape is misplaced.  In Heape, the taxpayer was a coal miner                            
            who also operated a farm.  We held that, even though the taxpayer                          
            did a considerable amount of work on his farm, he could not                                
            deduct his expenses of traveling between the coal mine and his                             
            home because, as here, the primary purpose for the trips was                               
            personal.                                                                                  
                  Petitioners also rely on Gosling v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.                         
            1999-148, and Genck v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-105.                                  
            Petitioners’ reliance on Gosling and Genck is misplaced.  In                               
            those cases, we held that the taxpayers could deduct the cost of                           
            travel between a business the principal location of which was at                           
            their home and a second location for the same business.  In                                
            contrast, the Fritchton property was not the principal place of                            
            business of the gift shop.                                                                 
                  We conclude that the primary reason for petitioners’ travel                          
            between their gift shop and the Fritchton residence was personal.                          
            See Commissioner v. Flowers, supra.                                                        
                  3.    Substantiation                                                                 
                  Petitioners’ only evidence of the amount of business use of                          
            the Cadillac and the Corvette in 1994 was petitioners’ testimony.                          
            Petitioner testified that his use of the Cadillac was 95 percent                           
            business and 5 percent personal.  Petitioners treated the trips                            






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

Last modified: May 25, 2011