Vanessa K. Bernardo - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          office space.  That space, located in Hollywood, California (the            
          Hollywood premises), was used by Melissa as living space during             
          periods when she was unable to return to reside with petitioner             
          in Irvine.  Prior to the trial in this case, petitioner did not             
          substantiate the balance of the expenses listed on Schedule C,              
          which consisted of $1,336 of depreciation expense and $1,422 of             
          “increased office expense.”                                                 
          Petitioner’s Schedule A Deductions                                          
               (1) Clothing Expense: $9,721                                           
               During 1999, in her position as a district manager for                 
          Mervyn’s, petitioner was required by her employer to wear black             
          or white dresses or suits (the latter to consist of either pants            
          or a skirt with matching jacket) while on the job.  There was no            
          need to go to “specialized” stores for the required clothing, and           
          there was no company logo on the clothing.  Because petitioner              
          did not own black or white dresses and suits, she was required to           
          purchase a new wardrobe, and the cost, in 1999, was $9,721.5                

               5  On brief, petitioner argues, for the first time, that the           
          $9,721 in unreimbursed employee business expenses consists of               
          $8,490 of “vehicle expense”, $350 of “parking fees, tolls and               
          transportation”, $450 of “travel expenses”, and only $431 of                
          “clothing costs”.  At trial, petitioner testified that the entire           
          $9,721 was attributable to “[t]he clothing allowance that was               
          disallowed”, and she agreed with the Court’s description of the             
          issue of unreimbursed employee business expenses as involving               
          only clothing.  There is no evidence in the record to support               
          petitioner’s allegation on brief that the $9,721 at issue mostly            
          relates to expenditures other than for clothing that she was                
          required to wear on the job.  Therefore, we find that the entire            
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011