- 7 -
place, and business purpose of the expense. At trial, petitioner
failed to provide any corroborating evidence, besides his self-
serving testimony. The Court has discretion to disregard
testimony which we find self-serving. Niedringhaus v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 212 (1992). Accordingly, petitioner
is not entitled to deduct a car and truck expense in excess of
respondent’s allowed car and truck expense for the year in issue.
2. Travel
Respondent disallowed $3,675 of petitioner’s 1995 travel
expense deduction for failure to substantiate the amounts by the
necessary records. We agree with respondent.
Petitioner testified that he traveled extensively to public
schools across the United States. Although records were
submitted to show the location of travel and the amount of the
expense; i.e., lodging and airfare, petitioner failed to provide
any information as to the purpose of the travel. There is no
information in the record showing the names of the schools
visited, the name of the contact person at the school, or the
business purpose of the meeting. Section 274(d) requires strict
substantiation, and it is clear to this Court that petitioner
failed to meet his burden. Although we find that petitioner
traveled to these places, petitioner failed to comply with the
strict requirements of the statute.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011