- 10 -
from petitioners’ Fritchton residence to Barbara’s Gift Shop as
business use. Petitioners contend that a trip to the shopping
mall or a restaurant is business related if the taxpayer makes a
business-related telephone call while on the trip. We disagree.
A business telephone call does not change the character of a trip
from personal to business. See H. Conf. Rept. 98-861, at 1028
(1984), 1984-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 282.
Mrs. Barmes used the Corvette for some personal purposes.
She did not estimate the amount of her business use of the
Corvette in 1994. Petitioners do not have a log, records, or
other corroboration of their testimony relating to their business
use of their automobiles as required by section 274(d)(4).
Petitioners did not establish the percentages of business use of
the two automobiles. See Rutz v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 879, 883-
886 (1976); Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 90 (1975),
affd. per curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976); Nicholls, North,
Buse Co. v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1225, 1235-1236 (1971);
Kennelly v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 936, 942 (1971), affd. 456 F.2d
1335 (2d Cir. 1972). Thus, petitioners may not deduct
depreciation of the Cadillac and the Corvette for 1994.
B. Whether Petitioners May Deduct the Costs of Restoring and
Improving Their Pond as a Casualty Loss
Petitioners deducted $27,187 on their Schedule C for
Barbara’s Gift Shop for restoration of their pond. Petitioners
now contend that they may deduct as a casualty loss for 1994
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011