                           T.C. Memo. 2011-34



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               JOANNA SUE MARTINEZ, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 2156-10.                Filed February 7, 2011.



     Joanna Sue Martinez, pro se.

     Suzanne M. Warren, for respondent.



                MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     COHEN, Judge:     Respondent determined a deficiency of $2,160

in petitioner’s Federal income tax for 2006.      The issue for

decision is whether petitioner is entitled to deduct employee

business expenses, primarily a mileage allowance for business use

of her automobile.    All section references are to the Internal

Revenue Code.
                                - 2 -

                          FINDINGS OF FACT

       Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated

facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference.

Petitioner resided in Nevada at the time that she filed her

petition.

       During 2006, petitioner was employed by Southern Nevada Labs

as a phlebotomist.    Her agreement with her employer was that she

would be paid $900 every 2 weeks to visit 60 patients, draw blood

for testing, and return the blood to the lab.    Petitioner drove

her own vehicle to visit the patients and return the blood to the

lab.    She also purchased some supplies but was provided essential

supplies by her employer.    She was employed in this manner for

approximately 6 months.

       Petitioner’s 2006 Federal income tax return was prepared by

an individual in his own home who did not sign the return as a

preparer.    On Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, petitioner claimed

$820 for miscellaneous items and $17,355 in vehicle expenses,

based on 39,000 miles driven and 100 percent business use of her

automobile.    The notice of deficiency disallowed the deductions

for lack of substantiation.

                               OPINION

       In her petition, petitioner alleged that she traveled an

average of 100 miles a day to see various patients and to return

collected blood to the lab where she was employed.    She alleged
                               - 3 -

that she did not keep track of each patient, that she discarded

records of her mileage after 2 years, that she purchased

uniforms, and that she did not save receipts.

     In her testimony at trial, petitioner described her duties

and the types of items purchased but did not provide any

information from which the actual mileage driven or the expenses

actually incurred could be determined.   She acknowledged that the

claim of 39,000 miles was inconsistent with the 100 miles per day

average alleged in her petition and her testimony that she worked

only part of the year.   She implied that the return preparer had

provided the mileage estimate and asserted that she would consult

a professional preparer in the future.   It is apparent from her

testimony that the mileage logs she claimed to have kept were not

the basis for the amounts claimed on her return.

     Section 274(d) requires that certain expenses, including

business use of a vehicle, must be substantiated by adequate

records or by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s

statement as to time, place, and business purpose.   Petitioner

testified that she had contacted her former employer in an effort

to find records that would help reconstruct her business use of

her vehicle during 2006.   Although she was afforded the

opportunity after trial to secure and produce to respondent such

records, she did not do so.   We cannot, therefore, allow any

deduction for business use of her vehicle.
                               - 4 -

     With respect to the other expenses claimed, totaling $820,

we might have estimated the amount of allowable deductions if

provided with sufficient information to make an estimate.       See

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

cases in which the Cohan principle is applied and estimates are

accepted, we bear heavily against “the taxpayer whose

inexactitude is of * * * [her] own making.”      Id. at 544.   We can

estimate the amount of the deductible expense only when the

taxpayer provides evidence sufficient to establish a rational

basis upon which the estimate can be made.     See Vanicek v.

Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 742-743 (1985).     Petitioner has not

provided such evidence.

     For the reasons stated,


                                            Decision will be entered

                                       for respondent.
