                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-147



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               CHARLES E. TOWNSEND, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 21894-04S.             Filed September 14, 2006.



     Charles E. Townsend, pro se.

     James H. Harris, Jr., for respondent.



     CHIECHI, Judge:    This case was heard pursuant to the provi-

sions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at

the time the petition was filed.1   The decision to be entered is

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

cited as authority.


     1
      Hereinafter, all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue. All Rule refer-
ences are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                               - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency of $2,290 in petitioner’s

Federal income tax for his taxable year 2002.

     The issues remaining for decision are:

     (1) Is petitioner entitled to deduct certain claimed medical

and/or dental expenses?   We hold that he is not.

     (2) Is petitioner entitled to deduct certain claimed chari-

table contributions?   We hold that he is not.

     (3) Is petitioner entitled to deduct certain claimed automo-

bile expenses?   We hold that he is not.

     (4) Is petitioner entitled to deduct certain claimed lodging

expenses?   We hold that he is not.

     (5) Is petitioner entitled to deduct certain claimed meal

expenses?   We hold that he is not.

     (6) Is petitioner entitled to deduct certain claimed uniden-

tified travel expenses?   We hold that he is not.

     (7) Is petitioner entitled to deduct certain claimed uniden-

tified business expenses?   We hold that he is not.

     (8) Is petitioner entitled to deduct certain claimed union

dues in excess of those allowed by respondent?   We hold that he

is not.

                            Background

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

     At the time petitioner filed the petition in this case, he

resided in Keyser, West Virginia.
                               - 3 -

     From April through October of 2002, petitioner was employed

away from his residence as a truck driver by a pipeline construc-

tion company.   During January through March and October 23

through December 2002, petitioner was not employed away from his

residence.

     Petitioner timely filed a tax return for his taxable year

2002 (petitioner’s 2002 tax return).   In Schedule A-Itemized

Deductions included as part of that return (2002 Schedule A),

petitioner claimed “Medical and Dental Expenses” (medical and/or

dental expenses) totaling $4,880 prior to the application of the

7.5-percent floor imposed by section 213(a).   As required by

section 213(a), petitioner reduced the $4,880 of such expenses

claimed in the 2002 Schedule A by 7.5 percent of his adjusted

gross income (i.e., by $4,623).

     In his 2002 Schedule A, petitioner also claimed “Gifts to

Charity” (charitable contributions) totaling $980.

     Finally, in his 2002 Schedule A, petitioner claimed “Job

Expenses and Most Other Miscellaneous Deductions” (job expenses)

totaling $18,107 prior to the application of the two-percent

floor imposed by section 67(a).   Of that total, petitioner

claimed $17,098 as “Unreimbursed employee expenses”, $175 as “Tax

preparation fees”, and $834 as “Other expenses” identified as

union dues.   With respect to the $17,098 of claimed unreimbursed

employee expenses, petitioner, as required, completed Form 2106-
                              - 4 -

EZ, Unreimbursed Employee Business Expenses, and included that

form as part of petitioner’s 2002 tax return (2002 Form 2106-EZ).

In the 2002 Form 2106-EZ, petitioner claimed the following

unreimbursed employee expenses:

               Expense                   Amount
                                        1
               Vehicle                   $5,844
               Travel2                    $6,884
               Business3                    $950
                                        4
               Meals                      $3,420
     1
      Petitioner calculated the $5,844 of claimed vehicle ex-
penses by using the standard mileage rate for 2002 of 36.5 cents
per mile and multiplying that rate by 16,012, the number of miles
that petitioner claims he drove his automobile for business
(business miles) during 2002.
     2
      In the 2002 Form 2106-EZ, the expense category “Travel”
(travel expense category) covered “Travel expenses while away
from home overnight, including lodging, airplane, car rental,
etc.”, but not expenses for meals or entertainment. Petitioner
did not specify in the 2002 Form 2106-EZ the type(s) of travel
expenses that he was claiming.
     3
      In the 2002 Form 2106-EZ, the expense category “Business”
covered business expenses not included in the expense categories
“Vehicle”, “Travel”, and “Parking fees, tolls, and transporta-
tion, including train, bus, etc., that did not involve overnight
travel or commuting to and from work”. Petitioner did not
specify in the 2002 Form 2106-EZ the type(s) of business expenses
that he was claiming.
     4
      In calculating the $3,420 of claimed meal expenses, peti-
tioner claimed in the 2002 Form 2106-EZ total meal expenses of
$6,840 and reduced that total by 50 percent, as required by sec.
274(n).

As required by section 67(a), petitioner reduced the $18,107 of

total job expenses claimed in the 2002 Schedule A by two percent

of his adjusted gross income (i.e., by $1,233).
                              - 5 -

     In determining the taxable income reported in petitioner’s

2002 tax return, petitioner deducted $257 as medical and/or

dental expenses and $16,874 as job expenses, as well as the other

itemized deductions claimed in the 2002 Schedule A, including the

claimed $980 of charitable contributions, that were not subject

to the 7.5-percent floor imposed by section 213(a) or the two-

percent floor imposed by section 67(a).

     Respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency

(notice) for his taxable year 2002.   In that notice, respondent

disallowed the deductions for the $257 of medical and/or dental

expenses that petitioner claimed in the 2002 Schedule A after the

reduction required by section 213(a), the $980 of charitable

contributions that petitioner claimed in the 2002 Schedule A, and

the $16,874 of job expenses that petitioner claimed in the 2002

Schedule A after the reduction required by section 67(a).

                           Discussion

     Petitioner bears the burden of proving that the determina-

tions in the notice are erroneous.2   Rule 142(a); Welch v.

Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).   Moreover, deductions are a

matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of

proving entitlement to any deduction claimed.   INDOPCO, Inc. v.

     2
      Petitioner does not claim that the burden of proof shifts
to respondent under sec. 7491(a). In any event, petitioner has
failed to establish that he satisfies the requirements of sec.
7491(a)(2). On the record before us, we find that the burden of
proof does not shift to respondent under sec. 7491(a).
                               - 6 -

Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992).   Petitioner was required to

maintain records sufficient to establish the amount of any

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

     Petitioner claims3 the following deductions: (1) Medical

and/or dental expenses of $4,880 prior to the application of the

7.5-percent floor imposed by section 213(a); (2) charitable

contributions of $980; and (3) job expenses of $16,874 prior to

the application of the two-percent floor imposed by section 67(a)

that consisted of (a) automobile expenses of $5,844, (b) lodging

expenses of $999.84 that petitioner included as part of the

$6,884 claimed in the travel expense category in the 2002 Form

2106-EZ, (c) meal expenses of $3,420,4 (d) the balance of

$5,884.16 that petitioner included as part of the $6,884 claimed

in the travel expense category in the 2002 Form 2106-EZ,

(e) unidentified business expenses of $950, and (f) union dues of

$188 in excess of those allowed by respondent.5   Respondent

counters that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of



     3
      Although the Court ordered petitioner to file a posttrial
brief, he failed to do so.
     4
      In the 2002 Form 2106-EZ, petitioner claimed total meal
expenses of $6,840, which he reduced by 50 percent, as required
by sec. 274(n).
     5
      Respondent concedes that during the year at issue peti-
tioner paid $646 of the $834 of union dues that petitioner
claimed in the 2002 Schedule A included as part of petitioner’s
2002 tax return.
                               - 7 -

establishing his entitlement to any of the deductions that he is

claiming.6

Claimed Medical and/or Dental Expenses

     Petitioner presented no evidence and advances no argument

with respect to the medical and/or dental expenses for which he

claims a deduction.

     On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed

to carry his burden of establishing that he is entitled for his

taxable year 2002 to the deduction that he claims for medical

and/or dental expenses.

Claimed Charitable Contributions

     Section 170(a) allows a deduction for any charitable contri-

bution, as defined in section 170(c), that is made during the

taxable year.   A taxpayer claiming a deduction under section 170

must satisfy certain requirements prescribed by regulations

promulgated under that section.    See sec. 1.170A-13, Income Tax

Regs.

     In support of his position that he is entitled for his

taxable year 2002 to a deduction of $980 for charitable contribu-

     6
      In addition to respondent’s concession that petitioner paid
union dues of $646, see supra note 5, respondent concedes that
during the year at issue petitioner paid a tax preparation fee of
$175. Respondent’s concessions will not affect the deficiency
determined in the notice unless we were to sustain petitioner’s
position with respect to his claimed expenditures for the use of
his automobile, lodging, meals, unidentified travel purposes, or
unidentified business purposes. That is because of the two-
percent floor imposed by sec. 67(a).
                                 - 8 -

tions, petitioner apparently relies on a letter dated March 18,

2005 (petitioner’s March 18, 2005 letter).     We find petitioner’s

March 18, 2005 letter to be nothing more than a self-serving and

conclusory document that in any event does not satisfy certain

requirements prescribed by regulations promulgated under section

170.    See sec. 1.170A-13, Income Tax Regs.

       On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed

to carry his burden of establishing that he is entitled for his

taxable year 2002 to the deduction that he claims for charitable

contributions.

Claimed Job Expenses

       A taxpayer is entitled to deduct all the ordinary and

necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in

carrying on a trade or business, “including * * * traveling

expenses (including amounts expended for meals and lodging other

than amounts which are lavish or extravagant under the circum-

stances) while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or

business”.    Sec. 162(a).

       Claimed Expenditures for Use of an Automobile,
       Lodging, Meals, and Certain Unidentified Travel Purposes

       For certain kinds of expenses otherwise deductible under

section 162(a), a taxpayer must satisfy certain substantiation

requirements set forth in section 274(d) before such expenses

will be allowed as deductions.    In order for petitioner’s claimed

expenditures for the use of his automobile, lodging, meals, and
                               - 9 -

certain unidentified travel purposes to be deductible, such

expenditures must satisfy the requirements of not only section

162(a) but also section 274(d).   To the extent that petitioner

carries his burden of showing that such claimed expenditures

satisfy the requirements of section 162(a) but fails to satisfy

his burden of showing that such expenditures satisfy the

recordkeeping requirements of section 274(d), petitioner will

have failed to carry his burden of establishing that he is

entitled to deduct such expenditures, regardless of any equities

involved.   See sec. 274(d); sec. 1.274-5T(a), Temporary Income

Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6, 1985).

     The recordkeeping requirements of section 274(d) will

preclude petitioner from deducting expenditures otherwise allow-

able under section 162(a)(2) for the use of his automobile,

lodging, meals, and certain unidentified travel purposes unless

he substantiates the requisite elements of each such expenditure

or use.   See sec. 274(d); sec. 1.274-5T(b)(1), Temporary Income

Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6, 1985).   A taxpayer is

required to

     substantiate each element of an expenditure or use
     * * * by adequate records or by sufficient evidence
     corroborating his own statement. Section 274(d) con-
     templates that a taxpayer will maintain and produce
     such substantiation as will constitute proof of each
     expenditure or use referred to in section 274. Written
     evidence has considerably more probative value than
     oral evidence alone. In addition, the probative value
     of written evidence is greater the closer in time it
     relates to the expenditure or use. A contemporaneous
                              - 10 -

     log is not required, but a record of the elements of an
     expenditure or of a business use of listed property
     made at or near the time of the expenditure or use,
     supported by sufficient documentary evidence, has a
     high degree of credibility not present with respect to
     a statement prepared subsequent thereto when generally
     there is a lack of accurate recall. Thus, the corrobo-
     rative evidence required to support a statement not
     made at or near the time of the expenditure or use must
     have a high degree of probative value to elevate such
     statement and evidence to the level of credibility
     reflected by a record made at or near the time of the
     expenditure or use supported by sufficient documentary
     evidence. The substantiation requirements of section
     274(d) are designed to encourage taxpayers to maintain
     the records, together with documentary evidence, as
     provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section [1.274-5T,
     Temporary Income Tax Regs.].

Sec. 1.274-5T(c)(1), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg.

46016-46017 (Nov. 6, 1985).

     The elements that a taxpayer must prove with respect to an

expenditure for traveling away from home on business, including

expenditures for the use of his automobile, lodging, meals, and

certain unidentified travel purposes are:   (1) The amount of each

such expenditure for traveling away from home, except that the

daily cost of the traveler’s own breakfast, lunch, and dinner may

be aggregated; (2) the time of each such expenditure, i.e., the

dates of departure and return for each trip away from home and

the number of days away from home spent on business; (3) the

place of each such expenditure, i.e., the destinations or local-

ity of travel, described by name of city or town or other similar

designation; and (4) the business purpose of each such expendi-

ture, i.e., the business reason for the travel or the nature of
                              - 11 -

the business benefit derived or expected to be derived as a

result of travel.   Sec. 1.274-5T(b)(2), Temporary Income Tax

Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014-46015 (Nov. 6, 1985).

     In lieu of substantiating the actual amount of any expendi-

ture relating to the business use of a passenger automobile, a

taxpayer may use a standard mileage rate established by the

Internal Revenue Service (standard mileage rate).     See sec.

1.274-5(j)(2), Income Tax Regs.; Rev. Proc. 2001-54, sec. 5.02,

2001-2 C.B. 530, 532.   The standard mileage rate is to be multi-

plied by the number of business miles traveled.    Rev. Proc. 2001-

54, sec. 5.02, 2001-2 C.B. at 532.     The use of the standard

mileage rate establishes only the amount deemed expended with

respect to the business use of a passenger automobile.     Sec.

1.274-5(j)(2), Income Tax Regs.   The taxpayer must still estab-

lish the amount (i.e., the business mileage), the time, and the

business purpose of each such use.     Id.

     In lieu of substantiating the actual amount spent for a meal

while traveling away from home on business, a taxpayer may use an

amount computed at the Federal meal and incidental expense (M&IE)

rate set forth in Appendix A of 41 C.F.R. chapter 301 (Appendix

A) for the locality of travel for each calendar day that the

taxpayer is traveling away from home on business.     See sec.

1.274-5(j)(1), Income Tax Regs.; Rev. Proc. 2001-47, secs.

3.02(1)(a), 4.03, 2001-2 C.B. 332, 333-334 (applicable to, inter
                                  - 12 -

alia, Jan. 1 through Sept. 30, 2002); Rev. Proc. 2002-63, secs.

3.02(1)(a), 4.03, 2002-2 C.B. 691, 693-694 (applicable to, inter

alia, Oct. 1 through Dec. 31, 2002).       The use of the M&IE estab-

lishes only the daily amount deemed spent for meals while travel-

ing away from home on business.      Sec. 1.274-5(j)(1), Income Tax

Regs.       The taxpayer must still establish the time, the place, and

the business purpose of the daily expenditures for meals.       Id.

     In support of the deductions that petitioner claims for his

taxable year 2002 for expenditures for the use of his automobile,

lodging, meals, and certain unidentified travel purposes, peti-

tioner testified that during that year he worked in North

Carolina and Pennsylvania.7      In support of his testimony, peti-

tioner relies on a document (document one) that his certified

public accountant prepared sometime after the Internal Revenue

Service contacted petitioner regarding petitioner’s 2002 tax

return.      Document one purports to list the job site locations at

which petitioner claims he worked during 2002 (i.e., West Jeffer-

son, North Carolina, and Wind Gap, Pennsylvania), the respective

time periods during which he claims he worked at such locations,

and the respective round-trip mileages from Core, West Virginia,

to such locations.       The record does not establish where peti-

tioner resided during the periods in 2002 when petitioner claims


        7
      Petitioner did not identify during his testimony the loca-
tions in N.C. or Pa. where he claims he worked during his taxable
year 2002.
                               - 13 -

he traveled to certain job site locations in North Carolina and

Pennsylvania.8   Nor does the record establish the location of the

principal office or place of business of petitioner’s employer

for such periods.   Document one also purports to list meal ex-

penses in 2002 of $38 per day for (1) 24 days in each of the

months of April, May, July, August, and October and (2) 30 days

in each of the months of June and September.   Petitioner also

relies on another document (document two) to support his position

with respect to the deduction that he is claiming for lodging

expenses.   It is not clear from the record when document two was

prepared.   Document two purports to list the dates on which

petitioner incurred lodging expenses, the respective names of the

establishments at which such expenses were incurred, and the

amounts of such expenses.

     Petitioner concedes that document one was not prepared at or

near the time in 2002 of the expenditures for the use of his

automobile, lodging, meals, and certain unidentified travel

purposes that are at issue.   Petitioner failed to establish when

document two was prepared.    We find that document one and docu-

ment two do not have the high degree of credibility that would be

present with a record or statement made at or near the time of

the use of petitioner’s automobile and the expenditures for



     8
      In petitioner’s 2002 tax return, which he timely filed,
petitioner indicated that his home address was Keyser, W. Va.
                                - 14 -

lodging, meals, and certain unidentified travel purposes that are

at issue.   See sec. 1.274-5T(c)(1), Temporary Income Tax Regs.,

50 Fed. Reg. 46016-46017 (Nov. 6, 1985).   Although petitioner

testified about document one and document two, we found his

testimony to be sparse, vague, general, and conclusory.   We do

not find his testimony to be the type of reliable corroborative

evidence required to support a record or statement not made at or

near the time of the use or expenditures at issue.   See id.     We

are unwilling to rely on document one, document two, and peti-

tioner’s testimony to establish petitioner’s position with re-

spect to the claimed expenditures for the use of his automobile,

lodging, meals, and certain unidentified travel purposes.9

     On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed

to carry his burden of establishing that he is entitled for his

taxable year 2002 to the deductions that he claims for expendi-

tures for the use of his automobile, lodging, meals, and certain

unidentified travel purposes.

     Claimed Unidentified Business Expenses

     Petitioner presented no evidence and advances no argument

with respect to the unidentified business expenses for which he



     9
      Assuming arguendo that we had found document one, document
two, and petitioner’s testimony to be reliable, those documents
and that testimony do not establish all of the elements that
petitioner must prove in order to satisfy the requirements under
sec. 274(d). See sec. 1.274-5T(b)(2), Temporary Income Tax
Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014-46015 (Nov. 6, 1985).
                              - 15 -

claims a deduction.

     On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed

to carry his burden of establishing that he is entitled for his

taxable year 2002 to the deduction that he claims for certain

unidentified business expenses.

     Claimed Union Dues

     In support of his position that he is entitled for his

taxable year 2002 to deduct $188 of union dues in excess of the

amount allowed by respondent,10 petitioner relies on document two.

Document two purports to list union dues totaling $645.50 that

petitioner claims he paid in 2002 to three different unions.

Petitioner did not offer any other evidence, such as canceled

checks, to corroborate that claim.     In any event, the total

amount of union dues that petitioner claims in document two is

$645.50, which is less than the amount conceded by respondent.

     On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed

to carry his burden of establishing that he is entitled for his

taxable year 2002 to the deduction that he claims for union dues

in excess of the amount allowed by respondent.

     We have considered all of the parties’ contentions and

arguments that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be

without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot.




     10
          See supra note 5.
                        - 16 -

To reflect the foregoing,

                                 Decision will be entered for

                            respondent.
