Scott Owen Schubert & Amy K. Moore - Page 10

                                        - 9 -                                         
          nature of their appointments.  The category designated as                   
          “purpose” merely states “Appts”.  Mr. Schubert attempted to                 
          explain his cursory reconstruction by stating:  “it was tough               
          enough doing the odometers * * * [and I] went back to doing the             
          summary”.  The Court finds that petitioners have not satisfied              
          the strict substantiation requirements of section 274(d).                   
          Accordingly, respondent’s determination is sustained.5                      
          III.  Deduction for Tax Preparation Materials                               
               A taxpayer may be allowed a deduction for ordinary and                 
          necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in              
          connection with the determination, collection, or refund of any             
          tax subject to the 2-percent floor of section 67(a).  See secs.             
          67(a) and (b), 212(3); see also supra note 3.                               
               In order to have a deductible amount, petitioners’ aggregate           
          miscellaneous itemized deductions must exceed $1,436.72 ($71,836            
          (AGI) x 2 percent).  After the disallowance of the unreimbursed             
          employee expenses, petitioners’ sole miscellaneous itemized                 
          deduction is the $75 for tax preparation materials.  Petitioners’           
          $75 miscellaneous itemized deduction does not exceed the 2-                 

               5  Even if the Court were to find that petitioners had                 
          substantiated their deductions for unreimbursed employee                    
          expenses, the Court would nevertheless disallow the deductions              
          because petitioners failed to show that their employers did not             
          have a reimbursement policy.  See, e.g., Boltinghouse v.                    
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-324.                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008