- 16 -
that he is entitled to a deduction of $7,529, representing
automobile mileage expenses that he incurred in 1995 in
connection with his Compuware employment. Accordingly, we find
that petitioner has conceded that he is not entitled to deduct
the $762 of claimed “other” expenses. See, e.g., Theodore v.
Commissioner, 38 T.C. 1011, 1041 (1962).
Section 274(d) imposes strict substantiation requirements
for deducting expenses relating to listed property, defined in
section 280F(d)(4)(A)(i) to include passenger automobiles. See
sec. 1.274-5T(a), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014
(Nov. 6, 1985). Under these requirements, no deduction is
allowable on the basis of any approximation or the taxpayer’s
unsupported testimony. Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823,
826-827 (1968), affd. per curiam 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969);
sec. 1.274-5T(a), Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra.
To meet the heightened substantiation requirements of
section 274(d), the taxpayer must substantiate the claimed
deduction with adequate records, or by sufficient evidence
corroborating the taxpayer’s own statement, showing the amount of
the expense, the time and place of the use of the listed
property, and the business purpose. Sec. 274(d); see also sec.
1.274-5T(b)(6), (c)(2), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg.
46016, 46017 (Nov. 6, 1985). Employee use of listed property is
not treated as satisfying the business use requirement unless the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011