                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2004-152



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



        ELLIOT S. AND DARLENE M. SAFFRAN, Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 6715-03S.              Filed November 4, 2004.


     Elliot S. Saffran, pro se.

     Nina P. Ching, for respondent.



     PAJAK, 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.   Unless otherwise

indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

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

Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.   The decision to be

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

should not be cited as authority.
                                - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency of $7,041 in petitioners’

1999 Federal income tax.

     The issue for decision is whether petitioners are entitled

to deductions claimed on a Schedule C, Profit or Loss From

Business, form.

     Some of the facts in this case have been stipulated and are

so found.   Petitioners resided in Milford, Massachusetts, at the

time they filed their petition.

     Because petitioners have not complied with the

substantiation requirements of section 7491(a)(2), the burden of

proof as to facts relevant to the deficiency remains on

petitioners.   Rule 142(a).

     Petitioners timely filed their joint Form 1040, U.S.

Individual Income Tax Return, for 1999.

     During 1999, petitioner Elliot Saffran (petitioner) operated

a “data processing” business.   On Schedule C, petitioner reported

gross receipts of $90,038, total expenses of $70,562, and a net

profit of $19,476.   Petitioner claimed Schedule C deductions for

car and truck expenses of $6,905, employee benefit programs of

$8,328, pension and profit-sharing plans of $12,113, and “other

expenses” of $8,741.   The $8,741 amount comprised $3,645 for a

computer, $1,726 for software, and $3,370 for parking fees and

tolls.

     Respondent disallowed $3,243 of the claimed car and truck
                                - 3 -

expenses deduction.    Respondent disallowed $8,328 of the claimed

employee benefit programs expense deduction, and instead allowed

$4,996 for self-employed health insurance.    Respondent disallowed

the deduction for pension and profit-sharing plans expense in

full.    Respondent disallowed the deduction for other expenses of

$5,371 and instead allowed a depreciation deduction of $1,301 for

the computer and software.    Respondent recharacterized the health

insurance deducted as “employee benefit programs of $8,328" as an

adjustment to gross income and allowed 60 percent of that amount

or $4,996 as a deduction.    Respondent disallowed $5,371 of the

claimed “other expenses”.

     Section 162(a) allows a deduction for ordinary and necessary

expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on

a trade or business.    Taxpayers, however, must maintain

sufficient records to establish the amount of the claimed

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

     Section 274(d)(4) imposes stringent substantiation

requirements for the deduction of certain listed property defined

under section 280F(d)(4).    Listed property includes, inter alia,

automobiles and computers.    Sec. 280F(d)(4)(A).   To deduct

expenses for such listed property, including depreciation,

taxpayers must substantiate by adequate records the following

items:    The amount of each separate expenditure, the listed

property’s business and total usage, the date of the expenditure
                                - 4 -

or use, and the business purpose for an expenditure or use.      Sec.

274(d); sec. 1.274-5T(b)(6), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed.

Reg. 46016 (Nov. 6, 1985).    To substantiate a deduction by means

of adequate records, a taxpayer must maintain an account book,

diary, log, statement of expense, trip sheet or similar record,

and/or other documentary evidence, which, in combination, are

sufficient to establish each element of expenditure or use.      Sec.

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

(Nov. 6, 1985).    Each recording of an element of an expenditure

or use must be made at or near the time of the expenditure or

use.    Sec. 1.274-5T(c)(2)(ii)(A), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50

Fed. Reg. 46017 (Nov. 6, 1985).    A taxpayer who is unable to

satisfy the adequate records requirement is still entitled to a

deduction for expenses that he can substantiate with other

corroborative evidence.    Sec. 1.274-5T(c)(3), Temporary Income

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

274(d) applies, as here, this Court cannot rely on Cohan v.

Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930), to estimate the

taxpayer’s expenses.    Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 827-

828 (1968), affd. per curiam 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969).

       Respondent disallowed $3,243 of petitioner’s claimed $6,905

deduction for car and truck expenses.    Petitioner submitted a so-

called log listing his travel expenses.    We are not required to

accept petitioner’s self-serving statements as gospel.    Tokarski
                                - 5 -

v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).    Our review of this log

leads us to conclude it was prepared at one time, and the entries

could not have been made at or near the times of the

expenditures.    Petitioner did not provide any credible evidence

that he was entitled to deduct car and truck expenses in an

amount greater than the amount allowed by respondent.   Therefore,

we sustain respondent on this issue.

     Petitioner claimed $8,328 on Schedule C under employee

benefit plans.   Petitioner introduced some documents which

included checks that were not canceled and nondeductible items

dated 1998, and which did not total the amount petitioner claimed

on his return.   We are not required to accept petitioner’s

generalized statements and decline to do so here without

supporting evidence.    Geiger v. Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688 (9th

Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159.

Respondent allowed 60 percent, or $4,996, as a deduction pursuant

to section 162(l)(1).   For 1999, section 162(l)(1) allows a

deduction equal to 60 percent of the amount paid for health

insurance costs of a self-employed taxpayer, his spouse, and

dependents.   Respondent is sustained on this issue.

     Respondent disallowed the $12,113 claimed deduction for

pension and profit-sharing plans.   At trial, petitioner presented

no information or support for this deduction and admitted that he

had “no more information”.    Petitioner provided no evidence that
                                 - 6 -

he paid any such expense.   Therefore, we sustain respondent on

this issue.

     The “other expenses” deduction of $5,371 included the cost

of a computer and software.   Respondent disallowed the $5,371.

However, respondent allowed a depreciation deduction of $1,301

for the computer and software.    Petitioner provided no evidence

that he was entitled to a greater deduction than allowed by

respondent, nor did he prove that he properly elected to expense

the computer and software under section 179.    Again, we sustain

respondent.

     Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or

without merit.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.



                                           Decision will be entered

                                      for respondent.
