- 27 -
the rental equipment at the time the trips occurred.
Additionally, petitioner has not argued that the trips were
related to the consulting services or portable clean room.
Accordingly, we hold that petitioner has failed to prove
entitlement to this deduction.
Petitioner claimed a deduction of $160 for business meals.
However, petitioner concedes that he is entitled only to a
deduction of $36, relating to one business lunch.15 The only
evidence presented by petitioner is a reference in the expense
account records of Cilena to a “technician lunch”. Petitioner’s
failure to present more evidence as to the business aspect of
this lunch precludes entitlement to the deduction.
D. Equipment Transportation and Storage
Petitioner claimed deductions of $5,326 in equipment storage
expenses and $3,66916 in equipment transportation costs. The
storage and equipment transportation expenses are deductible if
they are ordinary and necessary in carrying on petitioner’s trade
or business activities. See sec. 162(a). Petitioner has failed
15Petitioner testified that other deducted meals were not
related to his business activities and contended that such meals
would properly be deductible on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions,
as job search expenses. Petitioner failed to provide any
computations or other evidence to support this contention.
16Petitioner concedes that $1,799.50 in equipment
transportation expenses was not paid until a subsequent year.
Accordingly, the equipment transportation expense at issue is
$1,869.20.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011