TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Sukhjit Singh & Peggy A. Singh
Docket Number: 21940-07
Judge: Cohen
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 02/12/2009
Pages: 5

F .'.a c r.. T r. D w+.~'Aa~r(cid:127) ... s TA .1 . (cid:127) (cid:127) (cid:127) '{jyry ft{ JLL G FILE S T .C . Memo ., 2009-3 6 UNITED STATES TAX COURT SUKHJIT SINGH AND PEGGY A . SINGH, Petitioners v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 21940-07 . Filed February 12, 2009 . Sukhjit Singh, pro se . Kathleen Raup ,. for respondent . MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION COHEN, Judge : Respondent determined a deficiency of $7,99 0 with respect to the 2004 Federal income tax liability of Sukhji t Singh (petitioner) and Peggy A . Singh . The issue for decision i s whether petitioners are entitled to a-section 179 deduction . . Unless otherwise indicated , all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue . SERVED FEB 1 2 20,09 FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulate d facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference . Sukhjit Singh resided in Pennsylvania and Peggy A .-Singh resided in-Louisiana at the-time their petition was filed . Petitioner i s the" sole .shareholder of B .T .S . Carrier, Inc . (B .T .S . Carrier), an corporation . During 2004 petitioner conducted his truckin g business through B .T .S .-,Carrier as the_sole operator of a tractor trailer . On May 7, 2004, petitioner purchased a used 2001 BMW X5 sport utility vehicle (SUV) for $30,200 . During 2004 B .T .S . Carrier and/or petitioner contracted with ,_Bestway Transport Co . (Bestway Transport ), in Plymouth, .Ohio, t deliver goods . Approximately twice .per week .petitioner followed, a route that originated in Sandusky, Ohio, and, after stops in other States, terminated in Cleveland, Ohio . If there was a layover before undertaking the route again, petitioner would : return to Bestway Transport, where he routinely left his SW i n the parking lot while making deliveries with .the truck . Petit ioner .would ..then drive the SW,_to his .brother's home'in Michigan, where he frequently, stayed . Petitioner did no t maintain a mileage log or other, record of actual .use=for,,,the S W for business or other purposes . Petitioners claimed . a' sectio n 179 deduction of .the full $30,200 . for . the .. acquisition of the SW on Schedule C, Profit-or Loss From Business , attached to . their 2004 Federal income tax retur n OPINIO N Petitioner contends ' that pet Ltioners are entitled to a section,179 deduction for the SUV because it was used fo r business purposes . . Respondent argues that the deduction is not permitted because petitioners have not substantiated the business purpose of the expense , have presented no evidence that the SUV was used in petitioner ' s business and have not provided documentation to . substantiate th e business'use . Taxpayers bear the burden~of proving that they are entitle d to any deductions claime d.-New Colonial Ice . Co . v . Helvering , 292U .S . 435 , 440 (1934 ) ; Rockwell v . Commissioner , 512 F .2d 882, 886 (9th Cir . . 1975 ), affg . T .C . Memo . 1972-133 . Taxpayers ar e required to maintain records that are .sufficient to determine their correct tax liability . See,sec . 6001 ; sec . 1 . 6001-1(a), Income' ..Tax Regs .' When property is used in a=trade or business or held for the production of income, the taxpayer may be allowed a depreciation deduction.. Secs . 161, 167 . Alternatively ., the cost of property acquired .. by purchase . for use in the active conduct of a .trade or business may be expensed under section 179,during-the year .that the property was placed in service if the requirements of that section are ' satisfied . If the property . is used for both business and other purposes, then the portion of the-cost that is attributable to the business use is eligible, for expensing under . section 179, but only if more-than,50 percent of the use is fo r business purposes (the predominant use°requirement), . .,See .sec . . 1 .'179-1(d),, Income Tax Regs . Moreover, . to claim a,-section 179, deduction for "listed property :' which is defined in-section, 28,0F(d) .(4) to include property :used as,.a .means of transportation, the°taxpayer .,must satisfy the strict substantiation requirements of section .274(d) .(cid:127) . 'See Whalley v . Commissioner , T .C . .Memo . .1996-- 533 ; see also sec . .280F(d) (1) sec . 1 .179-1(d)(3),, Income Tax ~ Regs ... Section 274(,d) requires the taxpayer to substantiate the amount, time, place, and . business,purpose,~:of .these expenditures and to ' provide . adequate records orsufficient evidence to , .. corroborate his own . statement-. . See .sec . 1 ..274-5T(c) (1) ., Temporary Income Tax Regs ., 50 Fed . Reg . 46016 .(Nov, .~ 6, 1985) . . Petitioner did not maintain a mileage log and did no t provide relevant evidence for the Court to determinerrthe'SUV : .business use . Petitioner testified that he used the .SUV,to transport himself between his work and a,residence ._,The costs of commuting between one's work and residence are personal expenses and do not qualify . as deductible business .expenses . Sec .. 262 ; Fausner v . Commissioner ,- 413 U .S . 838, .839 (1973) ; sec . 1 .262-,-- . 1(b)( 5 ), Income.,Tax Regs . The record contains no evidence from, which we can determine the mileage amount, if,any,-of the SUV . substantiation requirements nor_the predominant use requirement . Neither taxpayers nor the Court may estimate permissibl e deductions that do not satisfy the strict substantiatio n requirements . of section 274(d) .-' See Sanford v . Commissioner , 5 0 T .C . 823, 827-82 .8 .(1968), affd . 412 F .2d 201 (2d Cir . 1969), . ,Petitioners are not entitled .to the section 179 deductio n Decision wil l be entered for respondent.