                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2002-86



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  SCOTT T. NOBLES, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent


     Docket No. 5275-00S.                Filed July 11, 2002.


     Scott T. Nobles, pro se.

     Paul K. Voelker, for respondent.



     PAJAK, Special Trial Judge:    This case was heard pursuant to

the provisions of section 7463.    The decision to be entered is

not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be

cited as authority.   All section references are to the Internal

Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.    All Rule

references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

     Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners’ 1998

Federal income tax in the amount of $2,088.     After concessions by
                                -2-

both parties, the sole issue for decision is whether petitioner

is entitled to a greater automobile mileage allowance than that

allowed by respondent.

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

Petitioner resided in North Highlands, California, at the time

his petition was filed.

     During 1998, petitioner was in the hardwood floor business.

Petitioner owned a 1977 Chevrolet Sierra pickup truck and used it

exclusively in his business.   On his 1998 Federal income tax

return, petitioner claimed a deduction for actual automobile

expenses in the amount of $13,409.    Respondent disallowed that

amount, as well as others that have been resolved by concessions,

and allowed $6,538 based on a reconstruction of approximately

21,700 miles at the standard mileage rate.

     Section 7491 does not apply in this case because petitioner

has not complied with all applicable substantiation requirements.

Sec. 7491(a)(2)(A).

     Section 274(d) requires a taxpayer to substantiate the

business use of listed property, as defined in section

280F(d)(4), which includes a pickup truck, by adequate records or

by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s own

statement.   The limited evidence placed in the record by

petitioner fails to persuade us that he is entitled to a greater

allowance for mileage than respondent allowed.    Accordingly, we
                               -3-

have no choice but to sustain respondent’s determination on this

point.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

     To reflect the concessions,

                                          Decision will be entered

                                     under Rule 155.
