Wayne B. Bailey - Page 14




                                       - 13 -                                         
          carrying on a trade or business.  Such expenses must be directly            
          connected with or pertain to the taxpayer’s trade or business.              
          Sec. 1.162-1(a), Income Tax Regs.  Generally, no deduction is               
          allowed for personal, living, or family expenses, nor is                    
          deduction proper for expenditures that are properly categorized             
          as capital expenditures.  See secs. 262 and 263.  The                       
          determination of whether an expenditure satisfies the                       
          requirements of section 162 is a question of fact.  Commissioner            
          v. Heininger, 320 U.S. 467, 475 (1943).                                     
               When a taxpayer establishes that he or she has incurred                
          deductible expenses but is unable to substantiate the exact                 
          amounts, we can estimate the deductible amount, but only if the             
          taxpayer presents sufficient evidence to establish a rational               
          basis for making the estimate.  See Cohan v. Commissioner, 39               
          F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930); Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85               
          T.C. 731, 742-743 (1985).  In estimating the amount allowable, we           
          bear heavily against the taxpayer where the inexactitude of the             
          record is of his or her own making.  See Cohan v. Commissioner,             
          supra at 544.                                                               
               However, deductions relating to travel, meals and                      
          entertainment, gifts, or use of listed property (including                  
          passenger automobiles) are subject to strict rules of                       
          substantiation that supersede the doctrine in Cohan v.                      








Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007