Barbara A. Trimble-Gee - Page 8




                                        - 7 -                                         
          hoped to obtain a large cleaning contract that would enable her             
          to relocate to southern California.  Petitioner gave no details             
          about her efforts to obtain such a contract, however, and                   
          petitioner acknowledged that her sister lived in or near                    
          Riverside at the time.                                                      
               We conclude that petitioner has failed to establish that               
          more than 50 percent of the Astro Van’s use in 2001 was for trade           
          or business purposes.  Accordingly, she is not entitled to make             
          the election under section 179.  See sec. 1.179-1(d)(1), Income             
          Tax Regs.  Because petitioner introduced no credible evidence               
          establishing that respondent’s allowance for depreciation expense           
          was incorrect for either 2001 or 2002, respondent’s determination           
          on this issue is sustained.4                                                
               B.   Expenses Subject to Section 274(d)                                
               Section 274(d) imposes strict substantiation requirements              
          for listed property, travel, entertainment, and meal expenses.              
          Sec. 1.274-5T(a), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014            
          (Nov. 6, 1985).  To obtain a deduction for such expenses, a                 
          taxpayer must substantiate by adequate records or sufficient                
          evidence to corroborate the taxpayer’s own testimony the amount             


               4 The Code imposes additional restrictions on a taxpayer’s             
          ability to expense the cost of property under sec. 179.  See,               
          e.g., secs. 179(b)(3)(A), 280F(d).  Because petitioner failed to            
          establish that more than 50 percent of the Astro Van’s use in               
          2001 was for trade or business purposes, we do not address these            
          provisions.                                                                 






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007