Lingren v. Comm'r

2016 T.C. Memo. 213, 112 T.C.M. 569, 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 210
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedNovember 22, 2016
DocketDocket No. 17459-15
StatusUnpublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2016 T.C. Memo. 213 (Lingren v. Comm'r) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lingren v. Comm'r, 2016 T.C. Memo. 213, 112 T.C.M. 569, 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 210 (tax 2016).

Opinion

ROGER L. LINGREN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Lingren v. Comm'r
Docket No. 17459-15
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2016-213; 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 210;
November 22, 2016, Filed

Decision will be entered for respondent.

*210 Roger L. Lingren, Pro se.
Tyson R. Smith, for respondent.
THORNTON, Judge.

THORNTON,
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

THORNTON, Judge: Respondent determined a $2,605 deficiency in petitioner's 2012 Federal income tax. The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to certain claimed business expense deductions.1

*214 FINDINGS OF FACT

In 2012 petitioner, a retired probation officer living in the San Francisco Bay area, produced acrylic paintings, selling some at local studios.

Petitioner and his then wife, who is also an artist, had taken one or two art classes taught at a local college by Diane Olivier. At some point Ms. Olivier organized an art class in the South of France; students were to stay in a chalet and travel to various locations to paint with pastels. In 2012 petitioner and his then-wife traveled to France, via Barcelona, for Ms. Olivier's class, accompanied by the wife's adult daughter. Their trip lasted three weeks, with 10 days devoted*211 to the art class.

Petitioner timely filed his 2012 Federal income tax return, attaching a Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, for a business described as "ART DEALERS". This Schedule C reported gross receipts of $1,329 and total expenses of $18,498, resulting in a net loss of $17,169. The Schedule C indicated that petitioner used the cash method of accounting.

In the notice of deficiency respondent disallowed certain of petitioner's claimed Schedule C expense deductions, specifically $3,141 for "Travel" and *215 $5,356 for "Car and Truck Expenses".2 Petitioner, while residing in California, timely petitioned the Court.

OPINION

The Commissioner's determinations in a notice of deficiency are generally presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving those determinations erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Petitioner does not contend, and the evidence does not establish, that the burden of proof shifts to respondent under section 7491(a) as to any issue of fact.

Section 162(a) allows the deduction of "all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade*212 or business". An expense is ordinary if it is customary or usual within a particular trade, business, or industry or relates to a transaction "of common or frequent occurrence in the type of business involved." Deputy v. du Pont, 308 U.S. 488, 495 (1940). An expense is necessary if it is appropriate and helpful for the development of the business. Commissioner v. Heininger, 320 U.S. 467, 471 (1943). Personal, living, or family expenses are generally not deductible. Sec. 262.

*216 Deductions are a matter of legislative grace; the taxpayer bears the burden of substantiating expenses underlying his claimed deductions by keeping and producing records sufficient to enable the Commissioner to determine the correct tax liability. Sec. 6001; INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); sec. 1.6001-1(a), (e), Income Tax Regs. Section 274(d) imposes more rigorous substantiation requirements for certain expenses, including those pertaining to travel and passenger automobiles. Expenses subject to section 274(d) must be substantiated; they cannot be estimated. See Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 828 (1968), aff'd,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Malik H. Franklin v. Commissioner
2020 T.C. Memo. 127 (U.S. Tax Court, 2020)
Jeffrey B. Yapp & Tamara A. Yapp v. Commissioner
2018 T.C. Memo. 147 (U.S. Tax Court, 2018)
Darrell Archer v. Commissioner
2018 T.C. Memo. 111 (U.S. Tax Court, 2018)
Harlan Wax & Deborah J. Wax v. Commissioner
2018 T.C. Memo. 63 (U.S. Tax Court, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 T.C. Memo. 213, 112 T.C.M. 569, 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lingren-v-commr-tax-2016.