                          T.C. Summary Opinion 2015-18


                         UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                   ADIATU M. JALLOH, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



      Docket No. 11891-12S.                         Filed March 9, 2015.



      Adiatu M. Jalloh, pro se.

      Andrew K. Glover, for respondent.



                              SUMMARY OPINION


      CARLUZZO, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the

provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the

petition was filed.1 Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not



      1
        Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 as amended, in effect for the years in issue, and Rule references are
to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                           -2-

reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent

for any other case.

         In a notice of deficiency (notice) dated February 15, 2012, respondent

determined deficiencies in petitioner’s Federal income tax as follows:

                             Year                Deficiency

                             2008                 $8,571
                             2009                  3,233

         The issues for decision for each year are: (1) whether petitioner is entitled

to a deduction for unreimbursed employee business expenses; and (2) whether

petitioner is entitled to a charitable contribution deduction for donations made in

cash and/or property in excess of the amount now allowed by respondent.

                                       Background

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

petition was filed, petitioner resided in Maryland.

         During the years in issue petitioner was employed as a nurse by three

hospitals. She worked in the emergency room for one, in cardiac surgery for

another, and in home health care for the third. Taking into account all three

positions, petitioner worked over 60 hours per week during each of the years in

issue.
                                        -3-

      At all times relevant petitioner was a member of a labor union, as was

required by each of her employers. Also, at all times relevant, petitioner was

required to adhere to each hospital’s dress code. Pursuant to the various dress

codes, petitioner was required to wear scrubs and closed-toed shoes. The color of

the scrubs she was required to wear depended on where she was working.

      Her employment as a home health care nurse required her to drive each

morning to the hospital to receive her assignments. From the hospital she traveled

to her first patient’s home, administered the required health care, and then moved

on to the next patient’s home, and so on, until she had finished with her

assignments for the day. Apparently, petitioner maintained a mileage log or logs

during the years in issue; however, she did not present them to the Court.

      During each year in issue petitioner made cash contributions to the Prince

George’s Muslim Association, Inc. (PGMA), and the Islamic Society of the

Washington Area (ISWA). In 2007 she donated a Ford Windstar to Melwood,2

and in 2009 she donated a Volkswagen Passat to the Military Order of the Purple

Heart (Purple Heart).

      2
        Respondent concedes that petitioner properly reported the 2007 donation of
the Ford Windstar on her 2008 Federal income tax return and that she is entitled to
a corresponding $500 charitable contribution deduction for that year. Petitioner
concedes that she is not entitled to a deduction greater than $500 for the donation
of the Ford Windstar.
                                        -4-

      Petitioner’s 2008 and 2009 Federal income tax returns were prepared by a

paid income tax return preparer. On a Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, attached

to each return petitioner claimed unreimbursed employee business expenses

totaling $9,143 for 2008, and $12,897 for 2009. Petitioner’s 2008 return shows

that the unreimbursed employee business expenses consist of the following:

      Unreimbursed Employee Business Expenses                  Amount

          Vehicle                                               $3,164
          Parking fees, tolls, and transportation                1,221
          Union dues                                             1,988
          Uniform and protective clothing                          975
          Job search costs                                       1,795

      Petitioner’s 2009 return shows that the unreimbursed employee business

expenses consist of vehicle expenses of $6,167, parking fees, tolls, and

transportation of $300, and other unidentified expenses.

      Also, on the 2008 Schedule A petitioner claimed a $31,037 charitable

contribution deduction, consisting of $15,340 in cash contributions and $15,697 in

noncash contributions. On the 2009 Schedule A she claimed a $10,357 charitable

contribution deduction, consisting of $6,490 in cash contributions and $3,867 in

noncash contributions.

      Petitioner also attached to each return a Form 8283, Noncash Charitable

Contributions, generally describing the noncash contributions as “CLOTHES,
                                        -5-

MISC, ETC”, and applying the “thrift shop value” method to determine the fair

market value of the donated property. Each entry on the Forms 8283 shows a fair

market value exceeding $1,000.

      In the notice respondent: (1) disallowed the entire unreimbursed employee

business expense deduction claimed on petitioner’s 2008 return for failure to

substantiate the amount claimed; (2) disallowed all but $5403 of the unreimbursed

employee business expense deduction claimed on petitioner’s 2009 return for

failure to substantiate the amount claimed; (3) disallowed the cash charitable

contribution deduction in full for each year for failure to substantiate the amount

claimed; (4) disallowed the entire claimed deduction for noncash charitable

contributions for 2008 for failure to substantiate the amount claimed; and (5)

allowed a $500 charitable contribution deduction for the donation of the

Volkswagen Passat for 2009, but otherwise disallowed for lack of substantiation

the noncash charitable contribution deduction claimed for 2009. Other

adjustments made in the notice need not be discussed as the adjustments are

computational or have no consequence to the deficiencies here in dispute.




      3
      In the notice respondent allowed a $540 unreimbursed employee business
expense deduction for union dues for 2009.
                                        -6-

                                     Discussion

      As we have observed in countless opinions, deductions are a matter of

legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proof to establish

entitlement to any claimed deduction.4 Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v.

Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292

U.S. 435, 440 (1934). A taxpayer claiming a deduction on a Federal income tax

return must demonstrate that the deduction is allowable pursuant to some statutory

provision and must further substantiate that the expense to which the deduction

relates has been paid or incurred. Sec. 6001; Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C.

87, 90 (1975), aff’d per curiam, 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976); Meneguzzo v.

Commissioner, 43 T.C. 824, 831-832 (1965); sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.

      As a general rule, if a taxpayer provides sufficient evidence that the

taxpayer has incurred a trade or business expense contemplated by section 162(a),

but the taxpayer is unable to adequately substantiate the amount of the expense,

then the Court may estimate the amount of such expense and allow a deduction to

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

However, in order for the Court to estimate the amount of an expense, there must

      4
      Petitioner does not claim that the provisions of sec. 7491(a) apply here, and
we proceed as though they do not.
                                         -7-

be some basis upon which an estimate may be made. Vanicek v. Commissioner,

85 T.C. 731, 742-743 (1985). Otherwise, any allowance would amount to

unguided largesse. Williams v. United States, 245 F.2d 559, 560 (5th Cir. 1957).

      Deductions for expenses attributable to travel, entertainment, gifts, and the

use of “listed property” (including passenger automobiles), if otherwise allowable,

are subject to strict rules of substantiation. See sec. 274(d); Sanford v.

Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 827 (1968), aff’d per curiam, 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir.

1969); sec. 1.274-5T(a), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov.

6, 1985). With respect to deductions for these types of expenses, section 274(d)

requires that the taxpayer substantiate either by adequate records or by sufficient

evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s own statement: (1) the amount of the

expense; (2) the time and place the expense was incurred; (3) the business purpose

of the expense; and (4) in the case of an entertainment or gift expense, the

business relationship to the taxpayer of each expense incurred. For “listed

property” expenses, the taxpayer must establish the amount of business use and

the amount of total use for such property. See sec. 1.274-5T(b)(6)(i)(B),

Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46016 (Nov. 6, 1985).

      Substantiation by adequate records requires the taxpayer to maintain an

account book, a diary, a log, a statement of expense, trip sheets, or a similar record
                                         -8-

prepared contemporaneously with the expenditure and documentary evidence

(e.g., receipts or bills) of certain expenditures. Sec. 1.274-5(c)(2)(iii), Income Tax

Regs.; sec. 1.274-5T(c)(2), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46017

(Nov. 6, 1985). Substantiation by other sufficient evidence requires the

production of corroborative evidence in support of the taxpayer’s statement

specifically detailing the required elements. Sec. 1.274-5T(c)(3), Temporary

Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46020 (Nov. 6, 1985).

      With these fundamental principles of Federal income taxation in mind, we

consider petitioner’s claims to the various deductions here in dispute.

I. Unreimbursed Employee Business Expenses

      Petitioner claimed unreimbursed employee business expenses of $9,143 and

$12,897 for 2008 and 2009, respectively. Petitioner’s 2008 return shows that the

unreimbursed employee business expenses consisted of vehicle expenses; parking

fees, tolls, and transportation; union dues; uniform and protective clothing; and

job search costs. Petitioner’s 2009 return shows that the unreimbursed employee

business expenses consisted of vehicle expenses; parking fees, tolls, and

transportation; and other unidentified expenses.
                                         -9-

      Generally, a taxpayer may deduct unreimbursed employee expenses as an

ordinary and necessary business expense under section 162. Lucas v.

Commissioner, 79 T.C. 1, 6 (1982).

      A. Vehicle Expenses and Parking Fees, Tolls, and Transportation

      Petitioner claimed unreimbursed employee business expense deductions of

$4,385 and $6,467 for vehicle expenses and parking fees, tolls, and transportation

on her 2008 and 2009 returns, respectively. Petitioner testified that she was

required to drive to various locations in order to fulfill her obligations as a home

health care nurse, and we accept her testimony that she did. However, her

testimony unsupported by the type of substantiation required by section 274 is

insufficient to allow her a deduction in any amount. Accordingly, she is not

entitled to a deduction for vehicle expenses and parking fees, tolls, and

transportation for either year in issue because she did not substantiate the expenses

as required by section 274 and its corresponding regulations.

      B. Union Dues

      Petitioner claimed a $1,988 unreimbursed employee business expense

deduction for union dues on her 2008 return. The unreimbursed employee

business expense deduction reported on petitioner’s 2009 return apparently
                                       - 10 -

includes an unidentified amount for union dues as well.5 According to petitioner’s

testimony, as a condition of her employment the hospitals required her to be a

member of a labor union. She further testified that $45.67 was withheld from her

bi-weekly paycheck from one of her employers to pay her union dues during each

year in issue. Based on the evidence presented, we find that petitioner is entitled

to a $1,100 deduction for union dues in 2008, and a $560 deduction for union dues

in 2009 in excess of the amount already allowed by respondent in the notice.

      C. Uniform and Protective Clothing

      Petitioner claimed a $975 unreimbursed employee business expense

deduction for the costs of purchasing and cleaning her hospital uniforms for 2008.

The unreimbursed employee business expense deduction reported on petitioner’s

2009 return apparently includes an unidentified amount for the costs of purchasing

and cleaning her hospital uniforms as well.

      According to petitioner, as a condition of her employments she was required

to wear varying colors of scrubs while on duty. The hospitals did not provide

uniforms to petitioner, and therefore she was required to purchase multiple sets of

scrubs to match the color required by each hospital’s dress code. Petitioner


      5
      In the notice respondent allowed a $540 unreimbursed employee business
expense deduction for union dues for 2009.
                                        - 11 -

testified that she purchased scrubs during the years in issue and that she sometimes

had them dry cleaned.

       According to respondent, petitioner is not entitled to a deduction for

uniform and protective clothing for either year in issue because she has failed to

substantiate the amount she claims she spent.

      We are satisfied from the evidence presented that petitioner purchased

scrubs, and from time to time, paid to have the scrubs dry cleaned during both

years in issue. Accordingly, we find that petitioner is entitled to a deduction for

uniform and protective clothing of $300 for each year in issue. See Cohan v.

Commissioner, 39 F.2d at 544.

      D. Job Search Costs

      Petitioner claimed a $1,795 unreimbursed employee business expense

deduction for job search costs on her 2008 return. Petitioner failed to provide the

Court with any explanation as to her claimed job search expense deduction.

Furthermore, she did not offer any evidence to substantiate the amount claimed.

Accordingly, respondent’s disallowance of petitioner’s claimed job search expense

is sustained.
                                        - 12 -

      E. Other Unidentified Business Expenses for 2009

      Petitioner’s 2009 return shows that the unreimbursed employee business

expenses included other unidentified expenses. The other unidentified expenses

relate to petitioner’s employments with the hospitals, but it is unclear what

specific costs are included in the deduction. Although we assume the other

unidentified expenses are similar to the types of expenses reported on petitioner’s

2008 return, at trial petitioner failed to present any evidence to explain, much less

substantiate, the amounts so reported. Petitioner is not entitled to a deduction for

the other unidentified unreimbursed employee business expenses reported on her

2009 return.

II. Charitable Contribution Deductions

      Petitioner claimed a $31,037 charitable contribution deduction on her 2008

return, consisting of $15,340 in cash contributions and $15,697 in noncash

contributions. Petitioner claimed a $10,357 charitable contribution deduction on

her 2009 return, consisting of $6,490 in cash contributions and $3,867 in noncash

contributions.6




      6
       Respondent now concedes that petitioner is entitled to a $915 deduction for
cash contributions for 2008 and a $1,055 deduction for cash contributions for
2009.
                                       - 13 -

      According to respondent, petitioner is not entitled to a deduction greater

than the amounts already allowed because she failed to substantiate the claimed

expenses.

      Section 170 allows deductions for contributions made during a taxable year

to qualifying organizations. Cash contributions must be substantiated by: (1)

canceled checks, (2) receipts from the donee (showing the donee’s name and the

date and amount of the donation), or (3) other reliable written records. Sec.

1.170A-13(a)(1), Income Tax Regs. In general, a gift of property must be

substantiated by a receipt from the donee showing the donee’s name, the date and

location of the contribution, and a description of the property contributed. Id.

para. (b)(1).

      Any contribution of $250 or more must also satisfy the requirement of

section 1.170A-13(f)(1), Income Tax Regs., which provides that to claim a

charitable contribution deduction of $250 or more, the taxpayer must substantiate

the contribution with a contemporaneous written acknowledgment from the donee

organization. Sec. 170(f)(8).

      The contemporaneous written acknowledgment must contain: (1) a

description of the amount of cash or a description of any property contributed; (2)

a statement as to whether the donee organization provided any goods or services in
                                         - 14 -

consideration for any property contributed; and (3) a description and good-faith

estimate of the value of any provided goods or services or if such goods or

services consist of intangible religious benefits, a statement to that effect. See sec.

170(f)(8)(B); sec. 1.170A-13(f)(2), Income Tax Regs. A written acknowledgment

is contemporaneous if it is obtained by the taxpayer on or before the earlier of: (1)

the date the taxpayer files the original return for the taxable year of the

contribution; or (2) the due date (including extensions) for filing the original

return for the year. Sec. 170(f)(8)(C); sec. 1.170A-13(f)(3), Income Tax Regs.7

      If a taxpayer makes a charitable contribution of property other than money

in excess of $500, the taxpayer must maintain written records showing the manner

of acquisition of the item and the approximate date of the acquisition. See sec.

1.170A-13(b)(3), Income Tax Regs.

      Petitioner testified that she regularly donated money and property during the

years in issue and that the noncash property donations included furniture, clothes,

and kitchen appliances, among other items.




      7
        Separate contributions of less than $250 are not subject to the requirements
of sec. 170(f)(8), regardless of whether the sum of the contributions made by a
taxpayer to a donee organization during a taxable year equals $250 or more. See
sec. 1.170A-13(f)(1), Income Tax Regs.
                                       - 15 -

      A. Cash Charitable Contributions

      With respect to the cash charitable contributions, petitioner provided a

donation receipt from PGMA purporting to substantiate 10 separate cash

donations made in 2008 and a donation receipt from the ISWA purporting to

substantiate cash contributions of $2,640 made in 2009.

      The PGMA receipt reflects cash charitable contributions that respondent

already conceded for 2008 in the supplemental stipulation of facts. The ISWA

receipt shows a $2,600 “expansion donation” made during 2009. According to

petitioner’s testimony, that amount reflects multiple contributions, including

contributions greater than $250. The ISWA receipt is undated and fails to identify

the dates and amounts of the individual contributions. We find that the ISWA

receipt is not adequate substantiation within the meaning of section 1.170A-

13(a)(1), Income Tax Regs., nor is it a contemporaneous written acknowledgment

under section 170(f)(8). Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to a deduction for

cash charitable contributions greater than the amounts respondent has already

conceded for 2008 and 2009.

      B. Noncash Charitable Contributions

      With respect to the noncash charitable contributions, petitioner attached a

Form 8283 to her 2008 and 2009 return, showing several contributions of property
                                        - 16 -

for each year, with each contribution of property valued over $250. To

substantiate the contributions, petitioner submitted donation receipts from the

Purple Heart, the National Children’s Center, the Lupus Foundation of America,

Inc., and the Vietnam Veterans of America. Each of the donation receipts is

deficient in one way or another, lacking either a date of contribution or a

description of the property contributed, or both. Furthermore, the donation

receipts neither reconcile with petitioner’s Form 8283 nor provide anything more

than vague descriptions of the items donated.

      Accordingly, we find that for each year in issue, petitioner has failed to

establish entitlement to a charitable contribution deduction for donations of

property in greater amounts than those now allowed by respondent.

      To reflect the foregoing,


                                                      Decision will be entered

                                                 under Rule 155.
