Carl Albert and Lorraine Rouse - Page 10

                                        - 9 -                                         
               Petitioners base the amount of the Schedule C car expense on           
          estimates they made after the mileage was incurred--the only                
          documentary evidence provided by petitioners is a summary                   
          prepared in anticipation of trial and dated several years after             
          the actual use of the car.  Petitioners likewise did not present            
          any reliable substantiation of the commission, fee, and supply              
          expenses reported on their Schedule C.  We conclude that                    
          petitioners have not substantiated these expenses and therefore             
          are not entitled to any deductions therefor.  Secs. 274(d),                 
          6001.3                                                                      
               Petitioners admit that the car and truck expense on the                
          Schedule C is the same expense that is listed as a miscellaneous            
          itemized deduction.  Petitioners are not entitled to a                      
          miscellaneous itemized deduction for this expense for the same              
          reasons that they are not entitled to the Schedule C deduction.             
               The remaining deductions claimed by petitioners are the                
          miscellaneous itemized deductions for the professional fees,                
          copying expense, telephone expense, and safe deposit box.                   
          Because these expenses total less than 2 percent of petitioners’            



          3Based on our holding, we need not reach respondent’s                       
          argument that petitioner was not engaged in the research activity           
          for profit within the meaning of sec. 183(a).  See also                     
          Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 35 (1987) (stating that           
          a taxpayer is engaged in a trade or business if the taxpayer is             
          involved in the activity with the primary purpose of making a               
          profit).  Likewise, we need not consider whether the research               
          expenses were startup expenditures under sec. 195(c).                       




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011