- 15 -
(2001); Clemons v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1979-273.
Petitioner’s testimony that he acquired his tools over the past
15 years and purchased some of them in the first 5 years he
worked at NWA indicates that some tools were approximately 12
years old during the year at issue.
The only documentary evidence petitioner introduced to
support his claimed deduction was a depreciation schedule
indicating that he purchased the tools on January 1, 2001, and
January 1, 2002, contrary to his testimony. Petitioner
introduced no documentary evidence regarding his tools, such as
receipts, that would show their purchase price or the purchase
date. Petitioner also did not describe what specific tools he
depreciated nor the tools’ expected useful lives.
Petitioner has not substantiated that he is entitled to a
depreciation deduction. Further, we are unable to estimate any
amount for depreciation under the Cohan rule because the evidence
petitioner introduced is inadequate. Petitioner is therefore not
entitled to deduct any amount for depreciation.
Cellular Phone Expenses
Petitioner claimed $336 of cellular phone expenses for 2003.
Cellular phones are included in the definition of “listed
property” for purposes of section 274(d)(4) and are thus subject
to the strict substantiation requirements. Gaylord v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-273. A taxpayer must establish the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007