- 14 -
were established at trial other than the use thereof by
petitioners in their professional careers. Accordingly, the
Court holds that the only and exclusive use of that apartment
during 1998 was for trade or business purposes. The limitations
of section 280A(c), therefore, are not applicable. Petitioners’
expenses in maintaining and furnishing the Ravenspur apartment
are deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses.
The Court next addresses whether the expenses deducted by
petitioners have been substantiated. The Court notes that Mr.
Radnitz testified credibly regarding his usage of offices both
within his residence and at the two outside locations. Moreover,
petitioners cooperated with respondent throughout the examination
of their returns and produced sufficient documentation of their
utilities expenses to convince the Court of their veracity.
Petitioners provided the Court with a summary of their
utilities expenses but provided only partial expense records to
support their summary. They incorrectly assumed that, since they
had provided the complete set of bills and expense records to
respondent during the audit, reproducing them in Court was not
necessary. In the absence of adequate substantiation, this Court
may estimate the amount of deductible expenses incurred, bearing
heavily against the taxpayer whose inexactitude in substantiating
the amount of the expense is of his own making. Cohan v.
Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930). However,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011