- 5 -
Respondent conceded that petitioners were entitled to deduct $315
of dental expenses, subject to the limitations of section 213.
At trial, petitioner offered no substantiation for any of
the deductions. Petitioner claimed all receipts were missing
because of a renovation of his home over a three-year period from
1996 to 1998. Petitioner admitted he had no receipts for the job
expense deduction. Petitioner made no attempt to reasonably
reconstruct any of his expenditures. Secs. 1.162-17, 1.274-
5(c)(5), Income Tax Regs. But cf. Gizzi v. Commissioner, 65 T.C.
342 (1975).
The claimed deductions are suspect because of the rounded
amounts, the repeated deduction of $2,500 amounts, and the
exaggerated deductions for some items. With regard to the
claimed employee business expenses, Mary Lou Gutierrez, Human
Resources Manager for Treasure Chest, was a most credible
witness. She explained that Treasure Chest reimburses employees
for work related expenses. She also testified that petitioner
did not work off the premises where the press machines were
located and had no reason to travel for his job. Respondent
detailed petitioner’s job related claims. Ms. Gutierrez did not
believe they were related to his job. It is clear to this Court
that these items of expenditure were not related to the job
petitioner performed for Treasure Chest.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011