- 18 -
1957-129; Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986);
Shackelford v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-271.
In sum, although petitioner was intimately familiar with the
substantiation requirements of the Tax Code, he chose not to keep
adequate records of alleged fuel expenditures that went unclaimed
on his Federal tax returns as filed and that he claims now to
offset gross income that he concedes he improperly omitted from
his Federal tax returns. Petitioner has failed to adequately
substantiate the unagreed aviation fuel expenses.
2. Depreciation on Petitioner’s Aircraft
In February 1991, petitioner purchased a King Air-N623R
aircraft (King Air) for $225,000 and subsequently placed it in
service. On his 1991 tax return, petitioner claimed no
depreciation deduction with respect to the King Air. Petitioner
now asserts that he is entitled to depreciation deductions of
$53,000 with respect to the King Air, based on an asserted 5-year
useful life of the aircraft and the availability of additional
$10,000 “first-year depreciation” pursuant to section 179.
Respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled to a 1991
depreciation deduction of $32,153 with respect to the King Air,
based on a 7-year class life and the half-year convention under
section 168.
Section 167(a)(1) allows as a depreciation deduction a
reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of
property used in a trade or business. Depreciation on tangible
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011