Robert A. White - Page 13
- 12 -
assignments during his normal shifts. Petitioner claimed that
DHS told inspectors that they were not authorized for vehicle
expenses reimbursement for overtime shifts because DHS was paying
them overtime. Petitioner has not introduced any evidence to
support his assertion that reimbursement was denied for any of
his transportation in a personal automobile between duty posts
(i.e., noncommuting transportation between business locations).
Where an employee incurs expenses for which he is entitled
to, but does not, seek reimbursement, he is not allowed to deduct
those expenses. Walliser v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 433, 437 n.4
(1979); Wollesen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1987-611, affd.
without published opinion 875 F.2d 317 (4th Cir. 1989).
Finally, even if petitioner claimed and DHS denied
reimbursement for the noncommuting expenses, petitioner did not
furnish any evidence to show how many of the miles driven were
between places of business. The Court concludes that the
evidence petitioner presented is insufficient to satisfy the
strict substantiation requirements of section 274(d).
Respondent’s determination as to the claimed vehicle expense
deduction is sustained.
Parking Fees and Tolls
Petitioner claimed a deduction of $1,285 for unreimbursed
parking fees and tolls. Petitioner did not provide any evidence
to support these expenses, to demonstrate that they were for
Page: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Last modified: March 27, 2008