T.C. Memo. 1999-360

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

SANDRA L. McBRAYER, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 1580-98. Filed October 28, 1999.

Robert J. Gumser, for petitioner.

Thomas A. Dombrowski, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge: Respondent determined a

deficiency in petitioner's 1994 Federal income tax in the amount

of $3,240. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.
- 2 -

1 Petitioner concedes that she is not entitled to deduct

Schedule C expenses in the amount of $1,110 for home maintenance

and $7,671 of the amount deducted as "Uniform/Dry Clean/Rental".

After concessions,1 the issues for decision are: (1)

Whether petitioner is entitled to deduct expenses in the amount

of $550 incurred in the rental of formal wear for the 1994 tax

year, and (2) whether petitioner is entitled to deduct $530 for

luggage stolen in 1994.

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. 

The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference. At the time the petition

was filed, petitioner resided in San Diego, California. 

Petitioner, a teacher in San Diego, was named California

State Teacher of the Year in 1993. In 1994, petitioner was named

National Teacher of the Year for her work in educating homeless

children.

After receiving the National Teacher of the Year award from

the President of the United States, petitioner took a year-long

paid sabbatical from her teaching job in San Diego in order to

lecture on the importance of educating homeless children. 

Petitioner reported $9,806 in gross receipts from her

speaking engagements as a lecturer on Schedule C of her 1994

Federal income tax return. Petitioner deducted the following

expenses totaling $15,762 on Schedule C:
- 3 -

Car and truck expenses $ 1,514

Depreciation 573

Utilities 1,714

Other expenses:

Uniform/dry cleaning/rental $8,221

Luggage destroyed traveling 530

maintenance of residence while

out of town 1,110

Conferences 2,100 11,961

Total 15,762

In a notice of deficiency dated October 24, 1997, respondent

disallowed $9,861 of the following Schedule C expenses: (1)

Uniform/dry clean/rental--$8,221; (2) luggage destroyed while

traveling--$530; and (3) maintenance of residence while out of

town--$1,110. 

Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and a taxpayer

seeking a deduction must establish her entitlement to the

deduction claimed. New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S.

435, 440 (1934).

Section 162(a) allows a deduction for all the ordinary and

necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or

business. Section 262, however, denies a taxpayer a deduction

for personal, living, or family expenses. 

Rental Clothing Deductions

Petitioner contends that she rented formal clothing on

various occasions while lecturing. Petitioner always inquired

about the occasion beforehand in order to be appropriately

dressed. Petitioner claimed deductions in the amount of $550 for
- 4 -

formal clothing rental expenses on Schedule C of her 1994 tax

return. 

The cost of clothing has generally been considered a

nondeductible personal expense pursuant to section 262. See

Hynes v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1266, 1290 (1980). Similarly,

courts have denied deductions even when taxpayers have shown that

the clothing would not have been purchased but for the

employment. See Kroll v. Commissioner, 49 T.C. 557, 566-567

(1968).

In Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757, 767 (1958), we

listed three criteria which must be met in order for clothing to

be deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense: (1)

The clothing is required or essential in the taxpayer's

employment; (2) the clothing is not suitable for general or

personal wear; and (3) the clothing is not so worn. 

Additionally, a taxpayer is required to substantiate the

deduction through the maintenance of books and records or other

sufficient evidence in order to be entitled to a deduction under

section 162(a). See sec. 1.6001-1, Income Tax Regs.

 In this case, petitioner could not recall specific events

for which she rented the formal wear. Petitioner proffered three

receipts which she claimed substantiated her rental expenses. 

When asked about the first two rental receipts, petitioner

stated: "I'm not sure of the first one, but the second one,
- 5 -

2 One of these receipts, dated Apr. 15, 1994, listed the

transaction as a sale.

looking at the date, I believe that I was in Washington going to

a White House event." The receipts contained no description of

the merchandise which was either rented or purchased.2

Petitioner was also unable to recall what type of formal wear the

receipts represented. The third receipt proffered by petitioner

was undated and did not include the name of the business. 

Accordingly, we find that petitioner did not adequately

substantiate her claimed expenses and does not qualify for a

clothing deduction under section 162(a). Upon the basis of the

record, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to deduct

clothing rental expenses for the 1994 tax year.

Section 165(a) Deduction--Luggage

On her 1994 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed a

Schedule C expense deduction in the amount of $530 for "luggage

destroyed [while] traveling". 

At trial, petitioner testified that the luggage was not

destroyed, but had been stolen at Reagan National Airport.

Petitioner testified that she placed two pieces of luggage

outside of a bathroom stall at Reagan National Airport in 1994

and that when she came out of the stall, the luggage was gone. 
- 6 -

3 It is unclear from the record how petitioner calculated

this deduction. It is apparently based on the initial cost of

the luggage which petitioner claimed was stolen. Additionally,

petitioner apparently did not claim a Schedule C deduction for

the loss of the contents of the luggage. 

Petitioner estimated that the approximate value of the lost

luggage was $530.3 

Section 165(a) allows a taxpayer to deduct losses sustained

during the taxable year which were not otherwise compensated. In

the case of an individual taxpayer, the section 165(a) deduction

is limited to: (1) Losses incurred in a trade or business; (2)

losses incurred in any transaction entered into for profit; and

(3) losses arising from fire, storm, shipwreck, other casualty,

or from theft. See sec. 165(c). The amount of the deduction for

any loss cannot exceed the adjusted basis of the property, as

provided in section 1011. See sec. 165(b). To be entitled to a

deduction under section 165(a), a taxpayer is required to

substantiate the deduction through the maintenance of books and

records or other sufficient evidence. See sec. 1.6001-1, Income

Tax Regs.

Petitioner provided the Court with three receipts: (1) A

receipt for a green piece of luggage, model number 244, dated

December 23, 1993, in the amount of $242.44; (2) a receipt for a

green piece of luggage, model number 228, dated April 6, 1994, in

the amount of $341.06; and (3) a receipt for a black leather

garment bag, dated April 27, 1994, in the amount of $210.90. 
- 7 -

Petitioner testified that the 1994 receipts represented expenses

incurred to replace the two pieces of luggage apparently stolen

at Reagan National Airport.

Petitioner initially claimed a Schedule C deduction in the

amount of $530 for luggage that was destroyed while traveling. 

At trial, petitioner testified that the luggage had not been

destroyed, but had been stolen. 

It is well settled that we are not required to accept

petitioner's self-serving testimony in the absence of

corroborating evidence. See Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99

T.C. 202, 212 (1992).

Petitioner failed to submit corroborating evidence, such as

a police report. Such evidence would have been helpful in

establishing the items stolen and the date of the theft. 

Petitioner also failed to establish that her loss was 

uncompensated by insurance and what the fair market value of the

luggage or her adjusted basis in the luggage would have been

pursuant to section 165(b). 

Upon the basis of the record, we find that petitioner has

failed to establish that her luggage had been stolen, the amount

of the loss, and that the loss was not compensated for by

insurance. We therefore hold that petitioner is not entitled to

deduct $530 pursuant to section 165(a). Respondent is sustained

on this issue.
- 8 -

To reflect the foregoing, 

Decision will be entered

for respondent.