Wing Yiu Kwan - Page 8




                                        - 7 -                                         

          property, section 274(d) overrides the so-called Cohan doctrine.            
          Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 827 (1968), affd. per                 
          curiam 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969); sec. 1.274-5T(a), Temporary             
          Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6, 1995).  Section               
          274(d) imposes stringent substantiation requirements for                    
          deductions related to travel, entertainment, gifts, and "listed             
          property (as defined in section 280F(d)(4))".  Passenger                    
          automobiles are listed property under section 280F(d)(4)(i).                
          Section 274(d) denies these deductions unless:                              
               the taxpayer substantiates by adequate records or by                   
               sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer's own                   
               statement (A) the amount of such expense or other item,                
               (B) the time and place of the travel, entertainment,                   
               amusement, recreation, or use of the facility or                       
               property, or the date and description of the gift, (C)                 
               the business purpose of the expense or other item, and                 
               (D) the business relationship to the taxpayer of                       
               persons entertained, using the facility or property, or                
               receiving the gift. * * *                                              

          Thus, under section 274(d), deductions for automobile expenses,             
          travel expenses, and meals and entertainment expenses may not be            
          estimated.  Instead the taxpayer must provide adequate records or           
          corroborate testimony with other evidence.                                  
               The limited amount of evidence submitted by petitioner in              
          support of the remaining disputed car and truck expenses is                 
          insufficient to satisfy the strict substantiation requirements of           
          section 274(d).  Accordingly, on this record, the Court holds               
          that petitioner is not entitled to deduct car and truck expenses            





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