Monday, September 13, 2010
Petitioner has, potentially, two trades or businesses. He is employed as a professor of mathematics, and he is engaged in research and writing on mathematical issues. He "wears two hats" but the "hats" are so similar in appearance that it is difficult to tell the difference between them. Because of this circumstance, it is particularly important that petitioner distinguish his research and writing activity from his activity as college professor as well as from his personal activities.
If a particular expense is related to his employment, it might be deductible as an employee business expense on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions. Petitioner would have to show, however, that the expense was not subject to reimbursement from his employer, CUNY. An expense is not deductible as ordinary and necessary to the extent that it was subject to reimbursement by the employer. Podems v. Commissioner, 24 T.C. 21, 22-23 (1955).
For an expense to be deductible as a trade or business expense on Schedule C petitioner must show that the expense is not a personal expense and that the expense is that of a trade or business other than that of his services as an employee. ...
Petitioner's testimony is reasonable; however, he has failed to provide the Court with any adequate records or sufficient evidence to corroborate his own testimony. ... Petitioner has failed to show that he is entitled to Schedule C deductions in excess of those respondent allowed. Because petitioner has failed to adequately substantiate his deductions, the Court need not address the profit objective, trade or business, and startup issues respondent raised in his pretrial memorandum.
Shpilrain v. Commissioner, T.C. Summ. Op. 2010-133 (Sept. 9, 2010).
Update: Tax Update Blog, Cryptographer Fails to Crack the Secrets of Sec. 274