Bamidele Arike Kolapo - Page 9

                                        - 8 -                                         
               Petitioner used her cell phone in 2003 and 2004 for                    
          personal, as well as business, purposes.  The $65 she paid each             
          month for cell phone usage during the years in issue was a                  
          standard monthly charge.  While petitioner may have used her cell           
          phone for business, as well as personal, purposes, there is no              
          indication that she paid any more than she would have had she not           
          used it for work.  Accordingly, we find that section 262                    
          prohibits petitioner from claiming her cell phone expense                   
               Finally, with regard to the remaining expense deductions in            
          dispute, petitioner produced no contemporaneous books, records,             
          or receipts to substantiate them.5  Petitioner having failed to             
          substantiate the deductions for those expenses, we find that                
          petitioner is not entitled to them.                                         
               We hold that petitioner is not entitled to any of the                  
          disallowed miscellaneous deductions in dispute.  As a result, we            
          note that the standard deduction for the years in issue might be            
          more advantageous to petitioner than the allowed itemized                   

               5 At trial, petitioner submitted a document indicating that            
          total union dues of $728.45 were paid on her behalf in 2004.                
          Petitioner argued at trial that this was the proper amount of               
          union dues she paid in 2004.  However, without more evidence that           
          petitioner actually paid this amount, and given the unreliability           
          of petitioner’s other testimony and evidence, we find that                  
          petitioner is entitled to only the amount stipulated with                   
          respondent.  See supra note 2.                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007