William Maher - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
          He also testified that his employer has a reimbursement policy              
          for employee business expenses.  Mr. Maher, however, did not                
          submit any evidence that his employer did not reimburse him for             
          his alleged business expenses.                                              
               Pursuant to section 162(a), a taxpayer may deduct all of the           
          ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the                 
          taxable year in carrying on a trade or business including a trade           
          or business as an employee.  Lucas v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 1, 6            
          (1982).  An employee cannot deduct trade or business expenses to            
          the extent that the employee is entitled to reimbursement from              
          his or her employer for expenditures related to his or her status           
          as an employee.  Id. at 7; Kennelly v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 936,           
          943 (1971), affd. without published opinion 456 F.2d 1335 (2d               
          Cir. 1972); Stolk v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 345, 356 (1963), affd.           
          326 F.2d 760 (2d Cir. 1964).                                                
               Mr. Maher was entitled to reimbursement for his claimed                
          unreimbursed employee expenses.  Accordingly, Mr. Maher is not              
          entitled to deduct any of these expenses.4                                  

               4  Mr. Maher is not entitled to deduct his unreimbursed                
          automobile expenses for an additional reason.  Certain categories           
          of expenses must satisfy the strict substantiation requirements             
          of sec. 274(d) in order for a deduction to be allowed.  The                 
          expenses to which sec. 274(d) applies include automobile                    
          expenses.  Secs. 274(d)(4), 280F(d)(4)(a)(i) and (ii).  We may              
          not use the Cohan doctrine to estimate expenses covered by sec.             
          274(d).  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, 1985).              
                                                             (continued...)           





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011