George W. Moss and Gwendolyn Arline-Moss - Page 6

                                        - 5 -                                         
          with documentary evidence substantiating each element of the                
          expense sought to be deducted.  Sec. 1.274-5T(c)(1), Temporary              
          Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46016 (Nov. 6, 1985).                        
               Petitioners submitted copies of Ameritech phone bills for              
          1998 that contain summary information on petitioner's telephone             
          charges but give no detail on the nonbasic and larger charges               
          included in the total bill.  For example, each bill shows a                 
          monthly service charge, and separate charges for local and long             
          distance service, and for taxes.   For some months, the bills               
          show separate charges for internet service and for paging.  Still           
          other monthly bills show, in some cases, hundreds of dollars of             
          charges for which there is no explanation.  The face of the bill            
          states:  "For Detailed Charges  - See Page 3".  There is,                   
          however, no page 3 available for any of the bills.  With respect            
          to what the Court assumes from petitioners' testimony may be cell           
          phone charges, there is nothing in the record meeting the                   
          requirements of sec. 1.274-5T(c)(1), Temporary Income Tax Regs.,            
          50 Fed. Reg. 46016 (Nov. 6, 1985).  If the charges were other               
          than cell phone charges, petitioners have failed to offer any               
          explanation or any substantiation for them.                                 
               Petitioners, for the real estate business phone, paid                  
          $1,148.15 for monthly service charges, and separate charges for             
          local and long distance service, taxes, internet service, and               
          paging.  The Court finds that petitioners have failed to properly           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011