- 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