- 46 -
but does not establish the precise amount, we may in some
circumstances estimate the allowable deduction, bearing heavily
against the taxpayer whose inexactitude is of his or her own
making. Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir.
1930). There must, however, be sufficient evidence in the record
to provide a basis upon which an estimate may be made and to
permit us to conclude that a deductible expense, rather than a
nondeductible personal expense, was incurred in at least the
amount allowed. Williams v. United States, 245 F.2d 559, 560
(5th Cir. 1957); Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 742-743
(1985).
Furthermore, business expenses described in section 274 are
subject to rules of substantiation that supersede the doctrine of
Cohan v. Commissioner, supra. Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C.
823, 827-828 (1968), affd. 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969); sec.
1.274-5T(a), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov.
6, 1985). Section 274(d) provides that no deduction shall be
allowed for, among other things, traveling expenses,
entertainment expenses, gifts, and expenses with respect to
listed property (as defined in section 280F(d)(4) and including
passenger automobiles, computer equipment, and cellular
telephones) “unless the taxpayer substantiates by adequate
records or by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s
own statement”: (1) The amount of the expenditure or use; (2)
the time and place of the expenditure or use, or date and
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011