- 9 -
item. Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 827 (1968), affd.
per curiam 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969).
The record does not contain any documentary evidence to
support petitioner’s claimed car and truck expenses. Petitioner
failed to maintain adequate records such as a diary, log book, or
trip sheets to show the distances he purportedly traveled in
furtherance of his locksmith business. Therefore, in view of the
strict substantiation rules of section 274(d), we hold that
petitioners are not entitled to deduct car and truck expenses for
1995.
3. Claimed Home Office Expenses
Section 280A limits the situations in which a deduction of
expenses related to a home office are allowable. There is an
exception if a portion of the dwelling unit is used exclusively
on a regular basis as the principal place of business for any
trade or business of the taxpayer or as a place of business which
is used by patients, clients, or customers in meeting or dealing
with the taxpayer in the normal course of his trade or business.
Sec. 280A(c)(1)(A),(B). Incidental or occasional meetings with
customers are not enough to qualify the home office for this
exception. Crawford v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-192.
In Commissioner v. Soliman, 506 U.S. 168 (1993), the Supreme
Court held that when a taxpayer carries on business in more than
one location the principal place of a taxpayer’s business is the
most important or significant place of business. This turns on
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011