W. Bradford Davis and Tedde M. Rinker - Page 22

                                       - 22 -                                         
          expense was not personal, the taxpayer must show that the expense           
          was incurred primarily to benefit his business and that there was           
          a proximate relationship between the claimed expense and the                
          business.  Walliser v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 433, 437 (1979).               
               Dr. Rinker testified as to the business purpose of some of             
          the expenditures, and the notes on the checks set forth an                  
          adequate basis for allowing some deduction for purchases of                 
          office supplies.  At least two of the checks written to Fry’s               
          Electronics for $625.38 and to Cost Plus for $702.27 represent a            
          purchase of assets the cost of which should be capitalized, not             
          deducted.  See sec. 1.263(a)-2(a), Income Tax Regs.  We therefore           
          allow petitioners deductions for the full amount of check No.               
          2093, as well as for portions of check Nos. 9061 and 9167, which            
          represent deductible business expenditures.  These amount to                
          deductions of $387.99 in total.                                             
          9.  Child Care Expenses                                                     
               At trial and on the brief, petitioners asserted that they              
          paid $8,951 for day care expenses of Dr. Rinker’s two children.             
          Dr. Rinker testified that she would not have been able to conduct           
          her medical practice without placing her children in day care.              
          Petitioners argued that the day care expenditures were deductible           
          business expenses.                                                          
               We have consistently held that two-earner married couples              
          may not deduct, as a business expense under section 162, the cost           






Page:  Previous  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011