- 7 - Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934). With these well-established propositions in mind, we must determine whether petitioners have satisfied their burden of proving that they are entitled to the claimed itemized deductions mentioned above. 1. Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions As previously stated, on their Schedule A for taxable year 2002, petitioners claimed miscellaneous itemized deductions of $28,188 for job expenses incurred during taxable year 2002. The deduction was claimed for expenses incurred relating to petitioner’s travel between his residence in Moorefield, West Virginia, and construction/work sites in Baltimore, Maryland, Arlington, Virginia, Union Bridge, Maryland, and Annapolis, Maryland. Respondent disallowed the deductions in full. Respondent determined that petitioners did not substantiate the claimed expenses or, if substantiated, petitioners did not prove that the expenses were not reimbursed by petitioner’s employer; nor did petitioners prove that Moorefield, West Virginia, was petitioner’s tax home. Section 162(a) allows a deduction for ordinary and necessary business expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. For an expense to be “ordinary” the transaction that gives rise to the expense must bePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011