- 10 - inattentive or indifferent to the outcome, in terms of profit or loss, of Robco’s activities. On the contrary, he was scrupulous in his dealings with the homeowners association, ensuring that while Robco did not make a profit, Robco’s costs were fully reimbursed. In sum, we hold that Robco was an activity conducted for profit in 2002. We therefore now must decide whether the amounts petitioners claimed as expenses in connection with Robco are allowable deductions. Section 162(a) allows a deduction for ordinary and necessary business expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business. For an expense to be “ordinary” the transaction that gives rise to it must be of a common or frequent occurrence in the type of business involved. Deputy v. du Pont, 308 U.S. 488, 495 (1940). To be “necessary” an expense must be “appropriate and helpful” to the taxpayer’s business. Welch v. Helvering, supra at 113-114. Where a taxpayer establishes entitlement to a deduction but does not establish the amount of the deduction, the Court in some circumstances is allowed to estimate the amount allowable. Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930). But see sec. 1.274- 5T(a), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6, 1985). However, there must be sufficient evidence in the record to permit the Court to conclude that a deductible expense wasPage: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NextLast modified: November 10, 2007