- 19 -
International Airport dated February 25, 2003, to support their
deduction for supplies. It is unclear whether they want to also
assert that the $5 was part of the $8 claimed for parking. If
this amount is for parking, it is unclear whether the amount paid
was a nondeductible commuting cost. Without more of an
explanation, petitioners are not entitled to deduct any amount
for parking expenses in 2003.
Publications
Petitioners claimed $26 for professional publications in
2003. Mr. Farran testified that this amount represented books
that he needed for his classes at Dakota County Technical
College. Petitioners have introduced no documentation or
substantiation of this expense, however. We conclude that
petitioners are not entitled to deduct the $26 for professional
publications.
Expenses Subject to Strict Substantiation Requirements
We now consider those expenses that are subject to the
additional strict substantiation requirements under section
274(d). Expenses subject to strict substantiation may not be
estimated under the Cohan rule. Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C.
at 827.
Cellular Phone Expenses
Petitioners claimed $372 for cellular phone expenses for
2003. Cellular phones are included in the definition of “listed
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007