- 7 -
traveled for purposes of her claimed deduction. Given the
contradictory nature and general unreliability of petitioner’s
testimony and the evidence produced, we find that petitioner has
failed to substantiate her 2003 and 2004 vehicle expenses.
Next, we must address petitioner’s cleaning expenses.
Petitioner provided no receipts to substantiate her cleaning
expenses. As we have already established, petitioner’s logs are
unreliable and insufficient to substantiate those expenses.
Additionally, petitioner failed to show that she was required to
wear a uniform to work, thus failing to prove that her cleaning
expenses met the ordinary and necessary business requirement
under section 162. Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s
determination to disallow petitioner’s deduction for her cleaning
expenses.
We must next address petitioner’s cell phone expenses. As a
general rule, section 262 prohibits a deduction for expenses that
are personal in nature. The prohibition of section 262 regarding
the deductibility of personal expenses takes precedence over the
allowance provision of section 162, Sharon v. Commissioner, 66
T.C. 515, 522-525 (1976), affd. 591 F.2d 1273 (9th Cir. 1978),
and a taxpayer must demonstrate that the expenses at issue were
different from or greater than what he would have spent for
personal purposes, Sutter v. Commissioner, 21 T.C. 170, 173-174
(1953).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007