- 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
deductions.
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