Jin Xiong - Page 14

                                       - 13 -                                         
          supported only by petitioner’s testimony that his office at the             
          university was 5 to 10 miles from his home.  We would not allow             
          any deduction for transportation expenses due to this lack of               
          substantiation.  Petitioner’s use of his vehicle to drive from              
          his home to the university was simply a cost of commuting, a                
          nondeductible expense.  See sec. 1.262-1(b)(5), Income Tax Regs.            
               Most of the excess unreimbursed employee and other                     
          miscellaneous expenses deduction petitioner claimed pertains to             
          his home office.  The remainder of the deduction consists of                
          expenses incurred for subscriptions to scholarly journals, which            
          respondent conceded at trial are deductible, the cost of meals              
          petitioner shared with colleagues while discussing work-related             
          matters, and the cost of trading stocks petitioner held in his              
          Roth IRA account.7                                                          
               All of the claimed expenses for meals were for meals                   
          consumed in College Station, where petitioner worked and resided.           
          Therefore, they were not traveling expenses potentially allowable           
          under section 162(a)(2) as expenses incurred while away from home           
          in pursuit of a trade or business.  Furthermore, a deduction for            
          meals and entertainment expenses, like the deduction for travel             

               7In his notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed                    
          petitioner’s claimed $1,550 other miscellaneous expenses                    
          deduction (apparently relating to gambling losses) and a $1,950             
          deduction for a capital loss.  Petitioner did not dispute these             
          items in his pleadings or at trial, and we therefore treat these            
          items as conceded by petitioner.  See Rule 34(b).                           

Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007