T.C. Summary Opinion 2011-125

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

SHARON R. WRIGHT, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 5831-10S. Filed October 24, 2011.

Sharon R. Wright, pro se.

Carrie L. Kleinjan, for respondent.

DEAN, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to

the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect when the petition was filed. Pursuant to section 7463(b),

the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court,

and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other

case. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references

are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue,
- 2 -

and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice

and Procedure.

Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner in

which he determined a deficiency of $2,665 for 2007. The issue

for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to deductions

claimed for unreimbursed employee business expenses reported on

Schedule A, Itemized Deductions.1

Background

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

The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by reference. Petitioner resided in New

Jersey when she filed her petition.

In 2007 petitioner was employed by EVO Merchant Services

(EVO) as a sales manager. Her job entailed, inter alia, field

training, which required her to travel. EVO had a reimbursement

policy for travel and entertainment expenses incurred on behalf

of the business. EVO would reimburse employees for the following

expenses: (1) Air travel, (2) ground transportation, (3) local

expenses, i.e., taxi or subway fares, (4) auto rentals, (5)

overnight lodging, (6) meals, (7) entertainment, (8) tips and

1Respondent also disallowed petitioner’s claimed deduction

for $200 of “job search fees”. Petitioner did not address her

job search fees in her petition or at trial; therefore, the Court

deems this issue conceded. See Rule 34(b)(4). Other adjustments

made to petitioner’s itemized deductions are computational and

will not be discussed. 
- 3 -

gratuities, (9) laundry, (10) organization and club memberships,

(11) insurance, (12) telephone, and (13) business gifts. EVO

would not reimburse expenses for the following: (1) Civil fines

incurred during company business because of parking, speeding, or

other violations, (2) child care fees, (3) airline and/or car

rental club memberships, (4) ordinary personal phone calls unless

traveling on business, (5) annual fees for personal credit cards

or traveler’s checks, (6) donations to charitable organizations,

(7) flight insurance, or (8) subscriptions for business

publications. 

Petitioner submitted monthly expense reports to EVO. Each

expense report listed four areas of expenses: Transportation,

accommodation, meals and entertainment, and miscellaneous. 

Petitioner timely filed her 2007 Federal income tax return

and deducted $14,063 for unreimbursed employee business expenses.

Respondent issued petitioner a notice of deficiency

disallowing the deduction for all of petitioner’s unreimbursed

employee business expenses.

Discussion

Generally, the Commissioner’s determinations are presumed

correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that those

determinations are erroneous. Rule 142(a); see INDOPCO, Inc. v.

Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290

U.S. 111, 115 (1933). In some cases the burden of proof with
- 4 -

respect to relevant factual issues may shift to the Commissioner

under section 7491(a). Petitioner did not argue or present

evidence that she satisfied the requirements of section 7491(a). 

Therefore, petitioner bears the burden of proof with respect to

the issues in the notice of deficiency.

Deductions and credits are a matter of legislative grace,

and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he or she is

entitled to any deduction or credit claimed. Rule 142(a); Deputy

v. du Pont, 308 U.S. 488, 493 (1940); New Colonial Ice Co. v.

Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934). Additionally, a taxpayer

must substantiate all expenses. Sec. 6001; Hradesky v.

Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 89 (1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d

821 (5th Cir. 1976). 

Section 162 generally allows a deduction for ordinary and

necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in

carrying on a trade or business. The performance of services as

an employee is considered a trade or business for section 162

purposes. Primuth v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 374, 377 (1970). 

Employees cannot deduct such expenses, however, to the extent

that they are entitled to reimbursement from their employers for

expenditures related to their status as employees. Robinson v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-99 (citing Orvis v. Commissioner,

788 F.2d 1406, 1408 (9th Cir. 1986), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-533,

and Lucas v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 1, 7 (1982)). 
- 5 -

Petitioner testified that EVO reimbursed only expenses that

had been approved in advance and that EVO’s reimbursement policy

was not available to the division for which she worked. She also

testified that through telephone conversations she was denied

reimbursement of certain expenses when she requested it. 

Petitioner provided no evidence corroborating her testimony that

EVO’s reimbursement policy was not available to her and that EVO

denied reimbursement of her expenses. Petitioner’s testimony is

self-serving, and the Court does not have to accept it as the

truth. See Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). 

EVO had a policy to reimburse employees for expenses related

to their employment, and petitioner received reimbursement for

certain expenses under the policy. Petitioner did not provide

any credible evidence that her request for reimbursement for

other expenses was or would have been denied. Therefore,

respondent’s determination to disallow the deduction for all of

petitioner’s unreimbursed employee business expenses is

sustained.2

We have considered all of petitioner’s arguments, and, to

the extent not addressed herein, we conclude that they are moot,

irrelevant, or without merit.

2Even if the Court found that EVO would not have reimbursed

petitioner for her expenses, she has failed to substantiate them

under either sec. 162 or 274. 
- 6 -

To reflect the foregoing,

 Decision will be entered

for respondent.