Richard and Judith Haeder - Page 32




                                        - 32 -                                        
               Section 274(d) imposes additional stringent substantiation             
          requirements for certain kinds of business expenses, such as                
          travel, meal, and entertainment expenses.  The substantiation               
          requirements of section 274(d) supersede the rule of Cohan v.               
          Commissioner, supra.  See Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823,             
          828 (1968), affd. per curiam 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969); Kim v.            
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-261, affd. without published                  
          opinion 215 F.3d 1319 (4th Cir. 2000); sec. 1.274-5T(a),                    
          Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6, 1985).              
          Under section 274(d), a taxpayer must substantiate the amount,              
          time, place, and business purpose of the expenditures with                  
          adequate records or sufficient evidence corroborating his or her            
          own statement.  See sec. 1.274-5T(b) and (c), Temporary Income              
          Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6, 1985).  If a taxpayer is             
          unable to fulfill the requirements of section 274(d), then he or            
          she is not entitled to the deduction.                                       
               Petitioners do not address the travel, meal, and                       
          entertainment expense issues in their briefs.  The parties,                 
          however, stipulated facts relating to the travel expenses.  In              
          addition, the travel, meal, and entertainment expense issues are            
          specifically identified in the stipulation of agreed adjustments            
          as disputed adjustments.  Under those circumstances, we decline             
          to treat petitioners’ failure to address the issue as a                     








Page:  Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011