                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2003-82



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               THOMAS C. PRIDE, SR., Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 13105-02S.              Filed June 19, 2003.



     Thomas C. Pride, pro se.

     Edwina L. Jones, for respondent.



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

the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect at the time the petition was filed.   The decision to be

entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion

should not be cited as authority.   Unless otherwise indicated,

subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
                              - 2 -

effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the

Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

     Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal

income tax of $405.11 for the taxable year 1999.

     The issues for decision are:   (1) Whether petitioner is

entitled to various itemized deductions disallowed by respondent,

and (2) whether petitioner received unreported interest income.

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

The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.    Petitioner resided in

Charlotte, North Carolina, on the date the petition was filed in

this case.

     On petitioner’s Federal income tax return for taxable year

1999, petitioner reported adjusted gross income of $40,414 and

claimed total itemized deductions of $15,294.    In the statutory

notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed the following

portions of the itemized deductions claimed by petitioner on his

return:

                                      Claimed   Disallowed

     Mortgage interest                $6,717     $1,023
     Charitable contributions          3,524        250
     Employee business expenses        1,423      1,423

The employee business expense deduction claimed on the return is

for expenses of $2,231 reduced pursuant to the section 67(a)

limitation on miscellaneous itemized deductions.    Respondent also
                                 - 3 -

determined that petitioner received unreported interest income of

$13.

       A taxpayer generally must keep records sufficient to

establish the amounts of the items reported on his Federal income

tax return.    Sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), (e), Income Tax Regs.

In the event that a taxpayer establishes that a deductible

expense has been paid but is unable to substantiate the precise

amount, we generally may estimate the amount of the deductible

expense bearing heavily against the taxpayer whose inexactitude

in substantiating the amount of the expense is of his own making.

Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930).    We

cannot estimate a deductible expense, however, unless the

taxpayer presents evidence sufficient to provide some basis upon

which an estimate may be made.     Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.

731, 743 (1985).1

       The first deduction in dispute is the deduction for mortgage

interest.    Mortgage interest generally is deductible under

section 163(a), subject to the requirements of section 163(h).

Petitioner argues that the $1,023 disallowed by respondent

represents interest he paid on a second mortgage.    Petitioner,

however, was unable to provide any substantiation for this second



       1
      Where petitioner has failed to provide the required
substantiation, as discussed in detail below, the burden of proof
does not shift to respondent pursuant to sec. 7491(a) and instead
remains on petitioner. Sec. 7491(a)(2)(A); Rule 142(a).
                                - 4 -

mortgage or for the alleged payments made with respect thereto.

While we accept petitioner’s testimony that at some point in time

he obtained a second mortgage on his residence, petitioner’s

uncorroborated testimony was insufficient to substantiate the

existence of, or payments on, a second mortgage during 1999.    We

sustain respondent’s disallowance of the relevant portion of the

mortgage interest deduction.    Sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), (e),

Income Tax Regs.

     The second deduction in dispute is the deduction for

charitable contributions.   The $250 portion of the deduction

disallowed by respondent represents the portion of petitioner’s

deduction that was claimed for noncash contributions.    Subject to

various requirements and limitations, charitable contributions

may be deducted under section 170(a).   In addition to the general

substantiation requirements noted above, deductions for

charitable contributions are allowed only if certain record-

keeping requirements are met.   Sec. 170(a)(1); sec. 1.170A-13,

Income Tax Regs.   With respect to noncash contributions,

taxpayers generally must obtain a receipt or other written record

from the donee showing the name of the donee, the date and

location of the contribution, and a description of the property

contributed.   Sec. 1.170A-13(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.   If

obtaining a receipt is impractical, the taxpayer must nonetheless

keep “reliable written records with respect to each item of
                               - 5 -

donated property that include the information” listed above.       Id.



     Petitioner argues that he donated clothes and various

household items to Goodwill, the Salvation Army, and the Boys’

Club.   However, petitioner provided no written records concerning

any donations and has provided this Court with no method by which

to ascertain with a reasonable degree of certainty what he

contributed during 1999.   We sustain respondent’s disallowance of

the relevant portion of the charitable contribution deduction.

Sec. 170(a)(1); sec. 1.170A-13, Income Tax Regs; see also sec.

6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), (e), Income Tax Regs.

     The final deduction in dispute is the deduction for employee

business expenses.   Unreimbursed employee business expenses

generally may be deductible under section 162(a).    However, the

deduction is a miscellaneous itemized deduction.    Sec. 67(b).    A

taxpayer’s miscellaneous itemized deductions are allowed only to

the extent by which they exceed 2 percent of the taxpayer’s

adjusted gross income.   Sec. 67(a).   Petitioner argues that he

incurred expenses for clothing which he was required to wear to

his job; subscriptions to various magazines; union dues; and

attendance at work-related seminars.    He estimated that the

magazine subscriptions were “less than $100" and that the union

dues were “roughly” between $120 and $140 per year.    The clothing

which petitioner was required to wear to work consisted of suits
                                - 6 -

and other general “business attire” which petitioner typically

wore only to work.

     The clothing expenses incurred by petitioner were for

clothes of a type which can be worn outside of work.    A deduction

may not be claimed for such expenses because they are

nondeductible personal expenses rather than business expenses,

even if the clothing was in fact used exclusively for work.    Sec.

262(a); Barone v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 462, 469 (1985) (“The

general rule concerning the deductibility of work clothes under

section 162(a) is that they must be of a type specifically

required as a condition of employment and not adaptable to

general usage as ordinary clothing.”), affd. without published

opinion 807 F.2d 177 (9th Cir. 1986).    Petitioner has failed to

substantiate the bulk of the employee business expenses for which

he claimed a deduction.   Although petitioner provided an estimate

for two of the remaining items, these items total only $220 to

$240 and do not meet the 2-percent floor imposed by section

67(a).   We therefore sustain respondent’s disallowance of the

employee business expense deduction.    Secs. 67(a), 6001; sec.

1.6001-1(a), (e), Income Tax Regs.

     The second issue for decision is whether petitioner received

unreported interest income.    Respondent determined that

petitioner received interest income of $13 from the Internal

Revenue Service during 1999.    Petitioner argues that he never
                                 - 7 -

received the check which allegedly contained this amount of

interest.   We need not reach this issue.      Because we have

sustained respondent’s determination concerning the disallowed

deductions, petitioner’s taxable income for 1999 is $22,316,

exclusive of the interest income.    Thus, whether or not

petitioner received $13 in unreported income does not change

petitioner’s tax liability under the tax tables promulgated by

the Secretary pursuant to section 3, which impose the same amount

of Federal income tax liability on taxable incomes which are at

least $22,300 but less than $22,350.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                         Decision will be entered

                                 for respondent.
