- 6 -
for a telephone line required in petitioner’s home by both the
police and fire departments. The $650 cellular expense was for a
cellular telephone that he used in both jobs.
The amount of expenses listed on the worksheet totaled
$1,761.01 less than the amount petitioner claimed on Schedule A
of his income tax return. Petitioner testified that he also
incurred unreimbursed job-related expenses for socks and shoes,
belts, short pants, bed linen, and food, which accounts for the
difference between the $4,838.99 listed on the worksheet and the
$6,600 claimed on his return.
With respect to the $485 claimed for the second telephone
line in petitioner's home and the $650 claimed for the cellular
telephone, petitioner maintained no contemporaneously prepared
records to document his employee-related uses of these devices.
At the time his return was under audit by respondent, petitioner
prepared a worksheet to support the claimed deductions. Such
evidence does not suffice to satisfy the substantiation
requirements for use of the cellular telephone because a cellular
telephone is listed property under section 280F(d)(4)(A)(v).
Moreover, with respect to the second telephone line, the Court is
not bound to accept petitioner's uncorroborated or self-serving
testimony that the amount claimed related to his employee-related
use of that line, and that there was no personal use involved.
Petitioner, therefore, has failed to sustain his burden on that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011