- 8 -
Tokh appeared at trial. For the most part, his uncorroborated
testimony was inherently unlikely and not credible.
Unreimbursed Employment Expenses
Petitioners claim that they are entitled to miscellaneous
deductions of $7,503 in 1996 and $7,842 in 1997 for unreimbursed
employment expenses for work equipment and tools, supplies,
printing, clothing, footwear, laundry services, licenses, dues,
publications, books, and classes. A trade or business expense
deduction is not allowable to an employee to the extent that the
employee is entitled to reimbursement from an employer. See
Heidt v. Commissioner, 274 F.2d 25 (7th Cir. 1959), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1959-31; Lucas v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 1, 7 (1982). The
cost of acquisitions and maintenance of clothing and footwear is
deductible as a trade or business expense if the item is
(1) specifically required as a condition of employment, (2) is
not adaptable to general usage, and (3) is exclusively worn for
employment purposes. See Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757,
767 (1958). If taxpayers establish that deductible expenses were
incurred but do not establish the amount allowable, the Court may
estimate the amount allowable, bearing heavily upon the
taxpayers. See Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d
Cir. 1930).
Other than the testimony of petitioner, there is no evidence
that the alleged expenses were incurred by petitioners. We are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011