Kuhl v. Commissioner
Opinion
*342 Decisions will be entered for respondent.
This case pertains to the qualification and substantiation of costs of goods sold and certain deductions claimed on P's 1985, 1987, 1988, and 1989 Federal income tax returns. Respondent also increased P's taxable income for unreported interest and dividend income for the 1988 taxable year, and unreported dividend income for the 1989 taxable year, and determined additions to tax for: (1) Untimely filed tax returns for all the years in issue, and (2) substantial understatements of income tax for the 1985, 1987, and 1988 taxable years.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
LARO,
| Additions to Tax | |||
| Year | Deficiency | Sec. 6651(a)(1) | Sec. 6661 |
| 1985 | $ 11,475.15 | $ 2,737.44 | $ 2,144.50 |
| 1987 | 8,928.90 | 1,784.85 | 2,232.22 |
| 1988 | 5,144.60 | 1,274.71 | 1,286.15 |
| 1989 | 7,949.00 | 2,027.97 | - 0 - |
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The issues for decision are:
(1) Whether certain charitable contributions claimed on petitioner's 1985 Federal income tax return are allowable under
(2) Whether*344 petitioner is entitled to deduct certain expenses claimed on Schedule C of his 1985, 1987, and 1988 Federal income tax returns. We hold he is not.
(3) Whether petitioner is entitled to deduct expenses claimed on Schedule C of his 1989 Federal income tax return for: (i) Legal and professional fees, (ii) utilities, (iii) rent, (iv) travel and transportation, (v) interest, and (vi) "other". We hold petitioner is not entitled to any of these deductions.
(4) Whether petitioner is entitled to the costs of goods sold claimed on Schedule C -- Profit and Loss from Business -- of his 1987 and 1988 Federal income tax returns. We hold he is not.
(5) Whether petitioner's gross income should be increased for: (i) Unreported interest and dividend income for the 1988 taxable year and (ii) unreported dividend income for the 1989 taxable year. We hold that it should.
(6) Whether petitioner is liable for additional self-employment taxes due to a change in self-employment income resulting from respondent's adjustments in the 1985, 1987, and 1988 taxable years. We hold he is.
(7) Whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under
(8) Whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax under
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in Detroit, Michigan, at the time he filed the petitions. During the years at issue, petitioner's business involved engineering, marketing, and inventing.
Petitioner claimed deductions on his 1985 Federal income tax return for: (1) A cash charitable contribution of $ 1,523 and (2) Schedule C expenses of $ 27,877.99. Respondent subsequently disallowed these deductions for lack of substantiation.
On his 1987 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed on Schedule C: (1) Business expenses of $ 27,905.77 and (2) cost of goods sold of $ 4,795.72. Respondent subsequently disallowed all business expenses and $ 3,568.27 of the cost of goods sold because of lack of substantiation.
On his 1988 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed on Schedule C: (1) Deductions in*346 the amount of $ 11,881 and (2) cost of goods sold of $ 7,304.42. Respondent subsequently disallowed all Schedule C deductions and costs of goods sold because of lack of substantiation. Respondent also determined that petitioner had not reported on his 1988 return income of $ 161 from stocks and bonds, and $ 13 from dividends.
On his 1989 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed deductions on Schedule C in the total amount of $ 39,393.04. With respect to these deductions, respondent subsequently disallowed all expenses for: (1) Legal and professional fees in the amount of $ 1,900, (2) travel, meals, and entertainment in the amount of $ 2,050.27, (3) interest in the amount of $ 1,750.36, (4) utilities in the amount of $ 2,221.42, (5) rent in the amount $ 1,260, and (6) "other" in the amount of $ 22,869.06, which included expenses for recruiting, interviewing, product evaluation, product development, and product research.
Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for delinquency penalties under
At trial, petitioner did not offer any records or other physical evidence to substantiate the 1985 charitable contributions, the cost of goods sold, or the deductions discussed above. 3 Petitioner testified that the deductions were reasonable and necessary in the performance of his business.
*348 OPINION
Deductions are strictly a matter of legislative grace; petitioner has the burden of proving his entitlement to all deductions claimed.
Charitable contributions are deductible under
Amounts paid for legal services are among the expenses that a taxpayer may deduct as ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on a trade or business.
Although taxpayers are required to maintain sufficient records to substantiate claimed deductions and expenses,
Furthermore, with respect to petitioner's travel and entertainment expenses, we cannot approximate under
*352 With respect to the travel and entertainment expenses, petitioner did not offer any evidence to corroborate his own testimony, which was vague. Petitioner also failed to adduce evidence with respect to the remaining Schedule C deductions. Accordingly, we must hold for respondent with respect to all such deductions in issue.
Cost of goods sold is not a deduction, but rather an offset to gross receipts in determining business income.
We also sustain respondent's determination with respect to the increases in petitioner's gross income: (1) For the 1988 taxable year based upon unreported interest and dividend income and (2) for the 1989 taxable year based upon unreported dividend income. Petitioner has not offered any evidence with respect to this issue and, accordingly, *353 we hold for respondent. See
Finally, the change in self-employment income resulting from our decisions on the foregoing issues renders petitioner liable for additional self-employment taxes.
The failure to file a timely return, without reasonable cause, will subject petitioner to an addition to tax.
Respondent's determination that petitioner is liable for additions to tax under
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. In both docket Nos. 14202-91 and 30602-91, petitioner originally was represented by Anthony S. Hart III. Before trial, this Court allowed Mr. Hart to withdraw as counsel.↩
2. Petitioner claims he filed extensions for all the years in issue and that his returns were timely. However, he concedes that he did not attach a copy of the extensions to the returns he filed in each of the years at issue. Respondent's files do not reflect extensions for the 1987, 1988, and 1989 taxable years.↩
3. Petitioner claims that he substantiated the deductions on a number of previous occasions. However, a trial before the Tax Court is a proceeding de novo.
. Accordingly, we must determine petitioner's tax liability upon the merits of the case and "not any previous record developed at the administrative level."Greenberg's Express, Inc. v. Commissioner , 62 T.C. 324, 328 (1974) .Id.↩ at 3284. Prior to the enactment of
sec. 274(d) , travel expenses could be approximated under the rule of .Cohan v. Commissioner , 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930) , affd.Sanford v. Commissioner , 50 T.C. 823, 827-828 (1968)412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969) .Sec. 274(d) was "intended to overrule, with respect to * * * [travel and entertainment expenses], the so-calledCohan rule". H. Rept. 1447, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962),1962-3 C.B. 405, 427 ; S. Rept. 1881, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962),1962-3 C.B. 707, 741 . In addition, the applicable regulations expressly supplant theCohan rule with respect to this issue.Sec. 1.274-5(a), Income Tax Regs.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.