Nielsen v. Comm'r
This text of 2013 T.C. Memo. 144 (Nielsen 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.
Opinion
Decision will be entered under
FOLEY,
Petitioner is a salesman. In 2006, he traveled throughout Florida to sell advertisements for BellSouth Advertising & Publishing, Corp. (BellSouth). Pursuant to its policy, BellSouth paid a portion of petitioner's business expenses. In 2006, BellSouth reimbursed $7,491 of petitioner's business expenses and included these payments in his taxable wages. In 2007, he traveled throughout Florida to sell credit card processing services for First Data Merchant Services, Corp. (First Data). Despite a formal policy which provided that employees could receive reimbursement for ordinary and necessary business expenses, First Data limited petitioner's reimbursement to $400 per month. In 2007, First Data reimbursed $4,486 of petitioner's business expenses and included these payments in his taxable wages.
On September 12, 2007, petitioner filed his 2006 Federal *149 income tax return. Petitioner claimed deductions for $51,280 of "Total expenses" on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, and $5,985 of "Job Expenses and Other Miscellaneous Deductions" on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions. On April 28, 2008, petitioner filed his 2007 Federal income tax return. On Schedule A, petitioner claimed a $22,787 deduction for unreimbursed employee business expenses. Respondent audited petitioner's returns and, on January 28, 2011, sent *146 him a notice of deficiency. In the notice, respondent disallowed, for lack of substantiation, the claimed deductions relating to 2006 Schedule C expenses and 2007 unreimbursed employee business expenses. Respondent determined, however, that petitioner was entitled to deductions for $7,491 of reimbursed employee business expenses relating to 2006. On May 2, 2011, petitioner, while residing in Florida, timely filed a petition with the Court. On December 5, 2012, petitioner filed an amendment to his petition.
An employee may generally deduct, pursuant to
Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or meritless.
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. Pursuant to
sec. 7491(a) , petitioner has the burden of proof unless he introduces credible evidence relating to the issue.See Rule 142(a) . Our conclusions, however, are based on a preponderance of the evidence, and thus the allocation of the burden of proof is immaterial.See .Martin Ice Cream Co. v. Commissioner , 110 T.C. 189, 210↩ n.16 (1998)3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2013 T.C. Memo. 144, 105 T.C.M. 1847, 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nielsen-v-commr-tax-2013.