- 62 - Respondent has also conceded that petitioner may claim, as business expenses, monthly bank service charges totaling $220 in 1990 on Real Services’ checking account. She claims that she should be allowed to deduct additional service charges imposed on her personal account, but she has failed to substantiate to our satisfaction either the amount of these claimed expenses or their business purpose. Petitioner has also failed to meet the substantiation requirements of section 274 with respect to a claimed traveling expense deduction in 1990 of $92. Petitioner further claims a deduction of $4,064.10 for telephone service in 1990. As was the case for 1989, her documentary evidence is duplicative and unclear, and there is generally no basis to distinguish between local and long-distance charges. We are persuaded, however, that local telephone service was utilized by petitioner to conduct her escort business. Again exercising our discretion under the Cohan rule, we hold that she may deduct $600 in 1990 for local telephone expenses at the locations where she conducted her escort business in that year. Petitioner may deduct additional legal fees of $1,650, incurred in 1990 by her in defense against charges that she was using the apartment on E. 77th Street for an illegal purpose, because they were incurred in connection with the preservation of her income-producing activities and are deductible. See Johnson v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. at 348. Similarly, she has demonstratedPage: Previous 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011