- 8 -
See Rule 142(a).1 To show that an expense was not personal, the
taxpayer must show that the expense was incurred primarily to
benefit his business, and there must have been a proximate
relationship between the claimed expense and the business.
Walliser v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 433, 437 (1979).
Where a taxpayer has established that he has incurred a
trade or business expense, failure to prove the exact amount of
the otherwise deductible item may not always be fatal.
Generally, unless prevented by section 274, the Court may
estimate the amount of such an expense and allow the deduction to
that extent. See Finley v. Commissioner, 255 F.2d 128, 133 (10th
Cir. 1958), affg. 27 T.C. 413 (1956); Cohan v. Commissioner, 39
F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930). In order for the Court to
estimate the amount of an expense, however, the Court must have
some basis upon which an estimate may be made. See Vanicek v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 742-743 (1985). Without such a basis,
an allowance would amount to unguided largesse. See Williams v.
Commissioner, 245 F.2d 559, 560 (5th Cir. 1957).
Certain business deductions described in section 274 are
subject to strict rules of substantiation that supersede the
doctrine in Cohan v. Commissioner, supra. See sec. 1.274-
1Petitioner has made no argument that the burden of proof
shifting provisions of sec. 7491(a)(1) have application to this
case, nor has he offered any evidence that he has complied with
the requirements of sec. 7491(a)(2).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011