- 7 -
each use was for business purposes. Instead, petitioner
estimated that he used the apartment 80 days during 1993. An
approximation of travel expenses, however, is not sufficient.
The Cohan rule, see Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543, 544
(2d Cir. 1930), providing for the Court’s approximation of the
amount of general business expenses, does not apply to travel
expenses, see Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 827 (1968),
affd. per curiam 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969). Inasmuch as travel
expenses may not be approximated and petitioner failed to meet
either the adequate records standard or the alternative test, the
deduction for apartment rent must be denied in its entirety.
At trial, petitioner argued that he should be permitted to
calculate his deduction for business use of the apartment by
using per diem rates. For the reasons discussed below,
petitioner is not entitled to calculate his deduction by using
per diem rates.
Section 274(d) and the regulations thereunder vest the
Secretary with authority to promulgate regulations that prescribe
alternative methods of substantiating expenses covered by section
274. See sec. 1.274-5T(j), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed.
Reg. 46032 (Nov. 6, 1985). Pursuant to this authority, the
Secretary has issued a series of revenue procedures providing
rules under which the amount of an employee’s ordinary and
necessary business expenses for lodging, meals, and incidental
expenses incurred while traveling away from home will be deemed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011