Robert and Cheryl McKeown - Page 16
- 15 -
to the strict substantiation requirements. Sec.
280F(d)(4)(A)(v); Gaylord v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-273.
A taxpayer must establish the amount of business use and the
amount of total use for the property to substantiate the amount
of expenses for listed property. Nitschke v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2000-230; sec. 1.274-5T(b)(6)(i)(B), Temporary Income Tax
Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46016 (Nov. 6, 1985). Expenses subject to
strict substantiation may not be estimated under the Cohan rule.
Sanford v. Commissioner, supra at 827.
Petitioners did not prove that NWA required Mr. McKeown to
have a cellular phone. Petitioners introduced evidence that NWA
required employees to have a telephone, but not necessarily a
cellular phone. Petitioners introduced copies of checks made out
to cellular phone providers totaling approximately $2,350 but
admitted at trial that they could not explain how they calculated
the $1,800 they claimed. Moreover, the amounts petitioners paid
for cellular telephones for 2003 included charges for the
cellular phones used by Mrs. McKeown and petitioners’ daughter.
Petitioners did not offer any evidence of how much of the
cellular phone expenses was for Mr. McKeown’s business use and
how much for personal use. Petitioners are therefore not
entitled to deduct any cellular phone expenses for 2003.
Page: 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Last modified: November 10, 2007