TAX COURT OPINION

Case: David Albert Cook
Docket Number: 4149-09S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/14/2010
Pages: 8

SuL3 M~-C-t ° -z' -FT CF1Q U a as UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , D .C . 2021 7 DAVID ALBERT COOK, Petitioner, v . Docket No . 4149-09 S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice . and Procedure, it i s 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 St . Louis, Missouri, on June 23, 2010, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . July 14, 2010 SERVED JUL 15 2010 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R . Carluzz o 2 Cook v . Commissioner Docket No . 4149-09S 3 June 23, 201 0 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render ora l 5 findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following 6 represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion . 7 This proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency is a small tax case subject to the provisions o f 9 Section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, a s 10 amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of 11 Practice and Procedure . 12 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 13 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue 14 Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Cour t 15 Rules of Practice and Procedure . Subsequent sectio n 16 references contained in this bench opinion unless otherwise 17 noted are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 18 as amended, in effect for 2005 . 19 David Albert Cook appeared pro se . Susan K . 20 Bollman appeared on behalf of respondent . 21 In a notice of deficiency dated November 4, 2008, 22 respondent determined a $2,995 deficiency in petitioner's 23 2005 Federal income tax . The issue for decision is whether 24 petitioner is entitled to a moving expense deduction i n 25 excess of the amount, in effect, already allowed by Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 respondent . 2 Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so 3 found . At the time the petition was filed, petitione r 4 resided in Illinois . 5 Petitioner changed jobs at the beginning of 2005 . 6 The job change required that he change his residence from 7 Boise, Idaho, to Collinsville, Illinois . The move too k 8 place over several trips between the locations of his old 9 job and his new job . At least one trip took place in 2004, 10 the rest took place in 2005 . Petitioner's move require d 11 that he transport not only his furniture and household goods 12 from one location to the other, but he had to move thre e 13 cars and a motorcycle as well . Earlier trips related to the 14 move involved air travel . He moved his furniture, household 15 items, and one of his cars, by driving a rented truck from 16 Boise to Collinsville, a trip that took two or three day s 17 during February 2005 . Earlier that year, in two separate 18 trips, he drove his other two cars from Boise t o 19 Collinsville, and towed his motorcycle back during one o f 20 those trips . These two trips each took two or three days as 21 well, and petitioner during these trips, typically woul d 22 spend overnight in a motel . He estimates the nightly cost 23 of the motel to have been about $75 . 24 As relevant here, on his timely filed 2005 Federal 25 income return petitioner claimed a $4,020 deduction for the Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 5 1 moving expenses incurred in connection with the above- 2 referenced move . On a Schedule A, Itemized Deductions , 3 included with that return he claimed a $17,521 deduction for 4 unreimbursed employee business expenses (after taking int o 5 account the limitations of Section 67(a)) . 6 In the above-referenced notice of deficienc y 7 respondent disallowed the deduction claimed for unreimbursed employee business expenses . Because the disallowance of 9 that deduction reduced the remaining unchallenged itemized 10 deduction to an amount less than the standard deduction, the 11 remaining itemized deductions were also disallowed an d 12 petitioner was allowed the appropriate standard deduction 13 attributable to his filing status . 14 The issue in this case involve the disallowance of 15 a deduction . As we have observed in countless opinions , 16 deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and generally 17 the taxpayer bears the burden of proof to establis h 18 entitlement to any claimed deduction . Section 7491(a) ; Rule 19 142(a) ; New Colonial Ice Co . v . Helvering , 292 U .S . 435, 440 20 (1934) . The taxpayer's burden requires the taxpayer (1) to 21 identify a specific statute that allows for the deductio n 22 claimed and (2) to substantiate any such deduction by 23 keeping and producing for the Commissioner's inspection, 24 adequate records that show the expense has been paid or 25 incurred . Section 6001 ; Hradesky v . Commissioner , 65 T .C . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 87, 90 (1975), affd . Per curiam 540 F .2d 821 (5th Circuit 2 1976) ; 3 In this case the disallowed deduction i s 4 identified as the deduction claimed for unreimburse d 5 employee business expenses . Petitioner could not explain 6 how the amount was computed . He explained that th e 7 individual who prepared his return was not available fo r 8 consultation . Be that as it may, he was confident that the 9 deduction related to his move and related moving expenses, 10 and the focus of both parties at trial was his entitlement 11 to a deduction for moving expenses in excess of the amount 12 already allowed . That amount is $4,020, the deductio n 13 claimed on the return and not otherwise challenged by 14 respondent . 15 Little technical discussion is really required 16 here . It is clear that under certain conditions that exist 17 in this case, a taxpayer is entitled to a deduction fo r 18 moving expenses if incurred in connection with th e 19 taxpayer's employment . See Section 217 . In general, tha t 20 section allows a taxpayer to deduct expenses attributable to 21 moving the taxpayer's goods and personal effects from th e 22 old location to the new, as well as the cost of th e 23 taxpayer's traveling expenses incurred in order to do so . 24 Lodging expenses are specifically included in the ter m 25 "moving expenses " see Section 217(b)(1)(B), but the cost of Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 7 1 meals are specifically excluded . See Section 217(b)(1)(last 2 sentence) . 3 There is authority for applying the stric t 4 substantiation rules under Section .274 for the portion of 5 the moving expense deduction attributable to travelin g 6 expenses , but we have proceeded in other cases allowing a 7 deduction based upon the taxpayer's estimates . For th e 8 following reasons, however , we need not concern ourselves 9 over the appropriate role of Section 274 in this case, and 10 under the circumstances of this case , proceed withou t 11 establishing that the provisions of Section 274 do not 12 apply . 13 Because the cost of meals are not includable in an 14 otherwise allowable moving expense deduction, we need only 15 focus on expenses not already taken into account in the 16 stipulation of facts . We should also comment, that to the 17 extent that the summary of expenses prepared by petitioner 18 suggests that expenditures for meals were incurred, those 19 items are likewise not taken into account . With respect to 20 the expenses not taken into account in the Stipulation of 21 Facts, those expenses include the cost of one, perhaps two 22 trips by air from Collinsville back to Boise, and the costs 23 of motels incurred during those trips . For reason s 24 explained by petitioner, no substantiating documents for 25 these items have been produced by petitioner . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 8 1 The expenses incurred by petitioner in connection 2 with the trip involving the rental truck, including airfare 3 to return to Boise from Collinsville, the cost of the rental 4 truck, the cost of the dolly used to tow one of his cars , 5 gas consumed and an emergency tow total $2,074 . In the 6 absence of any substantiating documents that would suggest a 7 greater allowance, the appropriate mileage driven during the 8 two trips between Boise and Collinsville in one or the other 9 of petitioner's cars allows $512 .70 to .be taken into account 10 in any allowable deduction . See Rev . Proc . 2004-64, Section 11 7 .02, 2004-2 C .B . 898 . These items total $2,587 (rounded) . 12 Petitioner has already been allowed a movin g 13 expense deduction of $4,020 . The amount already allowed 14 exceeds the amount shown to have been incurred by $1,433 . 15 Even if we were to allow petitioner an amount for one or two 16 trips by air (the record shows the cost of such travel t o 17 have been around $100) and ten or eleven nights of lodging, 18 by his own estimates, the number would not exceed $1,433 . 19 It follows that petitioner is not entitled to a 20 moving expense deduction in excess already allowed . Because 21 nothing in the record suggests that petitioner is otherwise 22 entitled to a deduction for unreimbursed employee business 23 expenses, respondent's disallowance of that deduction i s 24 sustained . 25 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 for respondent . 2 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 3 and opinion in this case . 4 (Whereupon , at 1 :55 p .m ., the bench opinion in the 5 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 9 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888