- 20 -
automobile for business approximately 70 percent of the time.
She introduced no testimony, documentation, or corroborative
evidence of any kind sufficient to establish each of the elements
required by section 274(d). Sec. 1.274-5T(c), Temporary Income
Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 64016 (Nov. 6, 1985).
Deborah also argues that the amounts retained by Cox Tomato
from the monthly distributions she received from June through
December 1994 to compensate Cox Tomato for her personal use of
the corporate automobile should be excluded from her gross
income. We reject this argument because it fails to recognize
that respondent’s adjustment increasing Deborah’s income by the
amount of distributions she received for 1994 includes only the
distributions Deborah actually received; i.e., the distributions
net of the amounts retained by Cox Tomato for Deborah’s personal
use of the automobile. In effect, Deborah has received the
benefit of an exclusion because the amount Cox Tomato withheld
from her distribution to compensate the company for her personal
use of the automobile was not included in her income. Deborah is
not entitled to exclude from income money she is not otherwise
required to include in income in the first place.
On this record, therefore, we hold that Deborah has failed
to substantiate her business use of the corporate automobile she
drove during 1994 and 1995 as required by sections 132 and 274
and that Deborah is not entitled to exclude any part of the
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011