- 23 -
With respect to the disallowed telephone expenses,
the record is devoid of any evidence showing that Mr. Nwankwo had
telephone expenses in 2003, and for reasons previously discussed,
we must again sustain respondent’s determination with respect to
this issue.
Finally, respondent disallowed petitioners’ Schedule C
“other expenses” deduction for “lumber services” of $2,251. Mr.
Nwankwo testified that “lumber services” was an expense that he
would incur if, upon arrival to his offloading destination, he
found himself either too tired or too time pressured to offload
his rig himself. He would often find “street people” at his
destination to offload his rig for him, pay them approximately
$200 in cash, and obtain their signature on a slip of scrap paper
as proof of this expense.
Respondent argues that these expenses were not ordinary and
necessary to Mr. Nwankwo’s business within the meaning of section
162. However, the term “necessary” imposes only the minimal
requirement that the expense be “appropriate and helpful” for
“the development of the * * * [taxpayer’s] business.” Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. at 113; Lilly v. Commissioner, 343 U.S. 90,
93-94 (1952); Commissioner v. Heininger, 320 U.S. 467, 471
(1943); cf. Kornhauser v. United States, 276 U.S. 145, 152
(1928); McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 413-415 (1819).
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011