- 9 -
B. Cellular Telephone Expense
Petitioner claims that he paid $715 for cellular telephone
service. At trial, petitioner admitted that there was “some”
personal use of his cellular telephone; he insisted, however,
that such use was minimal and that his cellular telephone was
used principally in order to insure the safety and security of
his clients.9
The record does not include any documentary evidence showing
that petitioner paid any particular amount of money to any
particular telephone company for cellular telephone service.
A cellular telephone is classified as listed property under
section 280F(d)(4)(A)(v). See Tarakci v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2000-358; Nitschke v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-230.
Accordingly, no deduction is allowable with respect to a cellular
telephone on the basis of any approximation or the unsupported
testimony of the taxpayer. See sec. 274(d)(4); see also Taracki
v. Commissioner, supra; Nitschke v. Commissioner, supra.
8(...continued)
deficiency, nor did respondent ever assert any claim for an
increased deficiency or otherwise raise the issue. See sec.
6214(a). Accordingly, we do not address this matter.
9 Petitioner testified as follows:
If I’m carrying a passenger who does not speak a word
of English, * * * and he has a heart attack or
something happen on the road or whatever, or he needs
to talk to somebody on emergency basis, the cell phone
is critical business expense to ensure * * *
businessman safety.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011