Kevin J. and Crystal A. Shoemaker - Page 20

                                       - 19 -                                         
         Shoemaker testified that during 2002 he used Mr. Shoemaker’s cell            
         phone to call his union hall to obtain job referrals and to                  
         determine the location of his claimed job site locations.  Mr.               
         Shoemaker also admitted at trial that during 2002 he used Mr.                
         Shoemaker’s cell phone for personal reasons.  We found Mr.                   
         Shoemaker’s testimony regarding the extent of his claimed busi-              
         ness use of Mr. Shoemaker’s cell phone to be vague, general, and             
         conclusory.  Petitioners do not contend, and the record does not             
         establish, that Ms. Shoemaker used Ms. Shoemaker’s cell phone for            
         anything other than personal reasons.                                        
              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) that they claim for cell phone expenses.17                            

               17Assuming arguendo that petitioners had established the               
          deductibility under sec. 162(a) of the claimed cell phone ex-               
          penses, they would still have to satisfy the requirements of sec.           
          274(d).  We concluded above that we shall not rely upon document            
          one or document two to establish petitioners’ position with                 
          respect to any of the claimed expenses, including the cell phone            
          expenses for which they claim a deduction for 2002.  In addition            
          to document one, document two, and Mr. Shoemaker’s testimony,               
          petitioners rely on ten invoices (cell phone invoices) totaling             
          $375.16 from U.S. Cellular for cell phone service charges during            
          2002.  The cell phone invoices do not establish all of the                  
          elements that petitioners must prove in order to satisfy the                
          requirements under sec. 274(d)(4).  See sec. 1.274-5T(b)(6),                
          Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46016 (Nov. 6, 1985).              
          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 expenses deduction for 2002.  See sec.            
                                                             (continued...)           




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