TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Arlene M. Robinson
Docket Number: 10257-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/16/2008
Pages: 6

UNITED STATES TAX COURT Washington, D .C . 2021 7 ARLENE M . ROBINSON, Petitionr, 'I ) Docket No . 10257-07 S v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . 0 R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b) , Tax Court Rules of Practice an d Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk ',of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzzo at Miami, Florida, on April 9, 2008, containing his oral findingsl of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the Loral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be under Rule 155 . (Signed) Lewis R . Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . May 16, 2008 SERVED MAY 2 0 2008 2 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzz o 2 April 9, 200 8 3 Robinson v . Commillsioner Docket No . 10257-07S 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the 6 following represents the court's oral findings of fact 7 and opinion . The oral findings of fact and opinio n 8 shall not be reli :d upon as precedent in any othe r 9 case . 10 This proceeding for the redetermination of a 11 deficiency is a Small Tax Case conducted pursuant to 12 the provisions oflSection 7463 of the Internal Revenue 13 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 o f 14 the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 1 5 16 This beech opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Interna l 17 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 18 Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 19 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, unless 20 otherwise indicated, section references are to the 21 Internal Revenue !Code of 1986, as amended, in effect 22 for 2004 . Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules 23 of Practice and Procedure . 24 Arlene M . Robinson appeared pro se . Timothy 25 Maher appeared on behalf of Respondent . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3 1 In a notice of deficiency dated February 8 , 2 2007, Respondent determined a $6,012 deficiency i n 3 Petitioner's 2004 federal income tax . To the credi t 4 of the parties, a great majority of the adjustments 5 made in the notice of deficiency have been agreed to 6 between them, and their agreement is reflected in a 7 stipulation of settled issues filed April 7, 2008 . 8 Their agreement minimizes the role of the 9 Court in this proceeding, and we are called upon to 10 determine only whether Petitioner is entitled t o 11 deductions for unreimbursed employee business expenses 12 as follows : 1) $200 for supplies ; and 2) $1,800 for 13 cellular telephcrle expenses . 14 Consistent with our reduced role, a s 15 described above, these issues can be resolved with a 16 discussion of the underlying facts, some of which have 17 been stipulated and are otherwise easily summarized . 18 Petitioner, who resided in Florida at th e 19 time the petition was filed, began her employment as a 20 firefighter for Miami-Dade County Fire Rescue (MDFR) 21 in 1995, and she was so employed during the year i n 22 issue . During that year she lived with anothe r 23 individual and had access to a land line telephone and 24 the use of a cell phone, the expenses of which wer e 25 paid by that other individual . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 Petitioner subscribed to a cell phone plan 2 in her own name and at her own expense during 2004, 3 and it is the use of that cell phone that underlies 4 the $1,800 deduction that remains in dispute . 5 Petitioner was not always satisfied with the 6 quality of the equipment that was provided to her a s 7 an MDFR firefighter . From time to time she incurre d 8 expenses to upgrade that equipment . Specifically, she 9 purchased better quality rope and boots that she used 10 as a firefighter . The expenses incurred to tha t 11 extent underlie the $200 deduction that also remains 12 in dispute . 13 The agreement between the parties on the 14 many other items originally in dispute demonstrates 15 that they are well versed in the controlling legal 16 principles that govern the deductions that remain in 17 dispute, and little discussion of those principles is 18 required here . 19 We begin with the $200 deduction fo r 20 supplies, the amount of which has been estimated by 21 Petitioner . We find that the expenses incurred to 22 purchase the types of equipment purchased b y 23 Petitioner are contemplated and allowable as a 24 deduction under Section 162(a) . 25 We further find that in the absence of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 evidence that shows the costs of such items he r 2 estimate of those costs is reasonable . Cohan v . .3 Commissioner , 39 F .2d 540 (2d Cir . 1930) . Petitioner 4 is entitled to a $200 employee business expens e 5 deduction for the costs of supplies . 6 Things are not so simple with respect to the 7 deduction for cell phone expenses, the amount of which 8 has also been estimated by Petitioner . The recor d 9 contains bills relating to a cell phone pla n 10 subscribed by her during 2004 but only for four months 11 of that year . 12 The bills suggest that Petitioner used the 13 cell phone extensively and that current monthl y 14 charges were not always paid on time . Petitione r 15 testified that her monthly cell phone bills amounted 16 to $400 or $500, but we cannot determine how much of 17 those charges were actually paid or how much usage 18 actually relates to her employment as a firefighter . 19 The deduction for the use of a cell phone is 20 subject to strictsubstantiation requirements, an d 21 without specific information on such usage no 22 deduction can beallowed . See Section 274(d) , 23 280F(d) (4) (A) (v) , Section 1 .274-5T(c) (1) , Temporary 24 Income Tax Regs ., 50 Fed . Reg . 46016 (Nov . 6, 1985) . 25 Petitioner is not entitled to a deduction Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 for the use of her cellular telephone, an d 2 Respondent's disallowance of that deduction is 3 sustained . 4 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be 5 entered under Rule 155 . 6 This concludes the Court's oral findings of 7 fact and opinion in this case . 8 (Whereupon, at 12 :47 p .m ., the bench opinion 9 in the above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 10 // 1 1 12 // 13 // 1 4 15 // 16 // 1 7 18 19 20 / / 21 2 2 23 24 // 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888