- 8 - allocation petitioner used to determine the amount of Schedule C expenses. Therefore, we shall apply the Cohan doctrine to each of the above expenses that petitioner asserts relate to the L.A. Models Inc. job to decide the amount that should have been claimed on Schedule C. Unless an expense was directly incurred for the L.A. Models Inc. job, the total business expenses reported on Schedule A should be prorated according to the amount of time spent on the particular job. Petitioner testified that he worked a total of 205 days in 1997. Petitioner further testified that the L.A. Models Inc. job lasted 4 days. Therefore, 1.95 percent of petitioner’s total days worked was spent on the L.A. Models Inc. job. Accordingly, 1.95 percent of petitioner’s total business expenses reported on Schedule A that relate to the L.A. Models Inc. job are proper Schedule C expenses. Of the above expenses that petitioner asserts relate to the L.A. Models Inc. job, petitioner testified that the $20 for parking, $450 for agent fee, and the $306 for meals were expenses directly incurred during that job. Petitioner presented documentation at trial to substantiate that the $450 agent fee directly related to the L.A. Models Inc. job. Since petitioner deducted expenses for parking on Schedule A that respondent agrees were substantiated, we find that petitioner is entitled to a Schedule C deduction of $20 for parking. Petitioner did notPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011