Kevin J. and Crystal A. Shoemaker - Page 19

                                       - 18 -                                         
         locations were incurred while he was away from home within the               
         meaning of section 162(a)(2).                                                
              On the record before us, we find that petitioners have                  
         failed to carry their burden of establishing that they are enti-             
         tled for their taxable year 2002 to the deduction under section              
         162(a)(2) that they claim for meal expenses.16                               
         Claimed Cell Phone Expenses                                                  
              A taxpayer is entitled to deduct expenses for the use of a              
         cell phone if such expenses constitute ordinary and necessary                
         expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on             
         a trade or business.  Sec. 162(a).                                           
              Petitioners are claiming a deduction for the expenses relat-            
         ing to two cell phones used during 2002, one of which Mr.                    
         Shoemaker used (Mr. Shoemaker’s cell phone) and the other of                 
         which Ms. Shoemaker used (Ms. Shoemaker’s cell phone).  Mr.                  


               16Assuming arguendo that petitioners had established the               
          deductibility under sec. 162(a)(2) of the claimed meal expenses,            
          they would still have to satisfy the requirements of sec. 274(d).           
          We concluded above that we shall not rely on document one or                
          document two to establish petitioners’ position with respect to             
          any of the claimed expenses, including the meal expenses for                
          which they claim a deduction for 2002.  Petitioners did not offer           
          any other evidence in support of their position with respect to             
          such meal expenses.  The record does not even establish whether             
          petitioners used the applicable M&IE rate for 2002.  On the                 
          record before us, we find that petitioners have failed to carry             
          their burden of establishing all of the elements that they must             
          prove in order to satisfy the requirements under sec. 274(d)                
          applicable to the claimed meal expenses.  See sec. 1.274-                   
          5T(b)(2), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014-46015              
          (Nov. 6, 1985).                                                             




Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011