Case ID: bta_4/html/0986-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MoRRis:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Appeal of DAVID SONENBLICK.
    Docket No. 3665.
    Decided September 23, 1926.
    
      Drnid Sonenblich pro se.
    
      F. 0. Graves, Esq., for the Commissioner.
    This is an appeal from the determination of a deficiency in income tax in the amount of $256.93 for the calendar year 1923. The error alleged is the failure of the Commissioner to allow a deduction of $5,904 claimed to represent traveling expenses.
    FINDINGS OF FACT.
    The taxpayer is an individual residing in Hew York City. During 1923 he was employed as a traveling salesman on a straight commission basis. During the year he spent 252 days on the road, during which he incurred and paid expenses which he itemized as follows:
    Railroad fares- $915
    Pullman fares- 195
    Excess baggage charges- 610
    Hotels_1,260
    Meals-1,135
    Sample carriers_ 378
    Models_ 400
    Baggage transfer- 258
    Entertaining customers-.-- 365
    Tips to porters and bellboys_ 190
    Telephone dnd telegraph-'--- 45
    Laundry_,- 72
    Yalet_ 36
    Busses and taxi fares- 45
    Total_5, 904
    The total amount of commissions earned by him during 1923 was $7,400.
   OPINION.

MoRRis:

The evidence is not sufficient to warrant the deduction of $378 for sample carriers, $400 for models, $365 for entertaining customers, $190 for tips to porters and bell boys, $45 for telephone and telegraph, and $45 for busses and taxi fares. The amounts of $72 for laundry and $36 for valet represent personal expenses and therefore are not deductible. We are satisfied that the other amounts were expended as itemized above. They are therefore deductible under section 214 (a) (1) of the Revenue Act of 1921.

Order of redeterrrdnation will be entered on 10 days’ notice, under Rule 50.