Fabian Vaksman - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         
                                       OPINION6                                       
          A.  Depreciation                                                            
               Petitioner claims that he drove his automobile 15,000 miles            
          in 1997 and that of this total, exactly 79.10 percent, or 11,865            
          miles, were for business.  We find this claim curious, given the            
          fact that (1) from January 8, 1997, through the end of the year,            
          petitioner did not have any clients for whom he provided                    
          translation services and (2) petitioner did not maintain any log            
          or other record regarding the use of his vehicle.7                          
               By virtue of the strict substantiation requirements of                 
          section 274(d)(4), no deduction is allowable with respect to any            
          listed property, as defined in section 280F(d)(4), on the basis             
          of any approximation or the unsupported testimony of the                    


               6  We decide the issues in this case without regard to the             
          general rule of sec. 7491(a)(1), which was amended by the                   
          Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998,              
          Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3001(a), 112 Stat. 685, 726, because the              
          record demonstrates that petitioner did not comply with the                 
          requirements of sec. 7491(a)(2)(A) and (B).  See Higbee v.                  
          Commissioner, 116 T.C.     (June 6, 2001).  Moreover, we do not             
          regard petitioner’s conclusory and self-serving statements as               
          credible evidence within the meaning of sec. 7491(a)(1).  See id.           
               7 At trial, petitioner was asked how he differentiated                 
          between business use and personal use of his vehicle.                       
          Petitioner’s explanation, which was nonresponsive to the                    
          question, was as follows:                                                   
                    I do what’s feasible in this situation, and the                   
               cost of running this business had to be kept to a                      
               minimum, so to maintain separate logs like this would                  
               be very cumbersome.  It’s an undue burden on a small                   
               business like this, so I did not have any such record.                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011