- 22 -
extent, 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 (2d Cir. 1930). However, in
order for the Court to estimate the amount of an expense, the
Court must have some basis upon which an estimate may be made.
Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 742-743 (1985). Without
such a basis, any allowance would amount to unguided largesse.
Williams v. United States, 245 F.2d 559, 560-561 (5th Cir. 1957).
Further, section 274(d) prohibits the estimation of expenses for
travel or deductions with respect to certain listed property;
thus, the Cohan rule does not apply to these types of expenses.
Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 827-828 (1968), affd. per
curiam 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969). Listed property includes
automobiles. Sec. 280F(d)(4).
During taxable year 1999, petitioner did not maintain books
and records for her jewelry activity, Port of Mystery, such as a
general ledger or other appropriate journals. Petitioner
purportedly kept “notes” of cash receipts received through her
activity. However, petitioner claims that she could not produce
such receipts because her computer, which contained a record of
such receipts and notes, “crashed”. Petitioner did not attempt
to reconstruct her records after her computer purportedly failed.
Petitioner claimed she incurred cost of goods sold in the
amount of $4,449 on her original return but changed such claim
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011