- 16 -
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, 50 T.C. at 827.
Petitioner did not prove that NWA required him to have a
cellular phone. Petitioner provided an NWA employee telephone
listing and copies of his cellular phone bills. The NWA employee
telephone listing indicates only that petitioner’s cellular phone
number was the contact number he gave NWA, not that NWA required
him to have a cellular phone. Petitioner also did not offer any
evidence indicating how much he used his cellular phone for
business use and how much for personal use. Petitioner failed to
establish that he incurred any expenses to use his cellular phone
for business purposes in addition to those he would have incurred
had he used it only for personal purposes. Petitioner is
therefore not entitled to deduct any cellular phone expenses for
2003.
Charitable Contributions
We finally consider petitioner’s charitable contributions.
Petitioner claimed he contributed $225 cash and property worth
$924 to charitable organizations in 2003. Charitable
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007