David J. Boyd - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         

               The second issue for decision is whether petitioner is                 
          entitled to deduct certain expenses relating to his law practice            
          on Schedule C in excess of amounts allowed by respondent.  The              
          expenses claimed included car and truck expenses, meals, travel,            
          and miscellaneous expenses for memberships, parking, and                    
          charitable contributions.4                                                  
               Section 162 allows a deduction for ordinary and necessary              
          expenses that are paid or incurred during the taxable year in               
          carrying on a trade of business.  Sec. 162(a); Deputy v. du Pont,           
          308 U.S. 488, 495 (1940).  In the case of travel expenses and               
          certain other expenses, such as entertainment, gifts, and                   
          expenses relating to the use of listed properties, including                
          passenger automobiles under section 280F(d)(4)(A), section 274(d)           
          imposes stringent substantiation requirements to document                   
          particularly the nature and amount of such expenses.  For such              
          expenses, substantiation of the amounts claimed by adequate                 
          records or by other sufficient evidence corroborating the claimed           


               4    Because petitioner is not entitled to itemize                     
          deductions on Schedule A, he cannot claim union dues as a                   
          miscellaneous itemized deduction.  Sec. 67(b); Butler v.                    
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-355.  Moreover, the dues were not             
          ordinary and necessary business expenses.  Petitioner, a lawyer,            
          "joined" a food and commercial workers' union for the personal              
          benefit of obtaining insurance.  The record contains no evidence            
          of any benefit to the law practice of petitioner's union                    
          "membership".  Cf. Boyd Constr. Co. v. United States, 168 Ct. Cl.           
          579, 339 F.2d 620, 623 (1964) (union dues paid by a construction            
          company on behalf of an officer were deductible where evidence              
          showed there was a substantial benefit to the corporation).                 





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011