                        T.C. Memo. 2009-36



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



        SUKHJIT SINGH AND PEGGY A. SINGH, Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 21940-07.             Filed February 12, 2009.



     Sukhjit Singh, pro se.

     Kathleen Raup, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     COHEN, Judge:   Respondent determined a deficiency of $7,990

with respect to the 2004 Federal income tax liability of Sukhjit

Singh (petitioner) and Peggy A. Singh.   The issue for decision is

whether petitioners are entitled to a section 179 deduction.

Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the

Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue.
                               - 2 -

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated

facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference.

Sukhjit Singh resided in Pennsylvania and Peggy A. Singh resided

in Louisiana at the time their petition was filed.   Petitioner is

the sole shareholder of B.T.S. Carrier, Inc. (B.T.S. Carrier), an

S corporation.   During 2004 petitioner conducted his trucking

business through B.T.S. Carrier as the sole operator of a tractor

trailer.   On May 7, 2004, petitioner purchased a used 2001 BMW X5

sport utility vehicle (SUV) for $30,200.

     During 2004 B.T.S. Carrier and/or petitioner contracted with

Bestway Transport Co. (Bestway Transport), in Plymouth, Ohio, to

deliver goods.   Approximately twice per week petitioner followed

a route that originated in Sandusky, Ohio, and, after stops in

other States, terminated in Cleveland, Ohio.   If there was a

layover before undertaking the route again, petitioner would

return to Bestway Transport, where he routinely left his SUV in

the parking lot while making deliveries with the truck.

Petitioner would then drive the SUV to his brother’s home in

Michigan, where he frequently stayed.   Petitioner did not

maintain a mileage log or other record of actual use for the SUV

for business or other purposes.   Petitioners claimed a section

179 deduction of the full $30,200 for the acquisition of the SUV
                                - 3 -

on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, attached to their

2004 Federal income tax return.

                               OPINION

     Petitioner contends that petitioners are entitled to a

section 179 deduction for the SUV because it was used for

business purposes.   Respondent argues that the deduction is not

permitted because petitioners have not substantiated the business

purpose of the expense, have presented no evidence that the SUV

was used in petitioner’s business, and have not provided

documentation to substantiate the business use.

     Taxpayers bear the burden of proving that they are entitled

to any deductions claimed.     New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering,

292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934); Rockwell v. Commissioner, 512 F.2d 882,

886 (9th Cir. 1975), affg. T.C. Memo. 1972-133.    Taxpayers are

required to maintain records that are sufficient to determine

their correct tax liability.    See sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a),

Income Tax Regs.

     When property is used in a trade or business or held for the

production of income, the taxpayer may be allowed a depreciation

deduction.   Secs. 161, 167.   Alternatively, the cost of property

acquired by purchase for use in the active conduct of a trade or

business may be expensed under section 179 during the year that

the property was placed in service if the requirements of that

section are satisfied.   If the property is used for both business
                                 - 4 -

and other purposes, then the portion of the cost that is

attributable to the business use is eligible for expensing under

section 179, but only if more than 50 percent of the use is for

business purposes (the predominant use requirement).    See sec.

1.179-1(d), Income Tax Regs.   Moreover, to claim a section 179

deduction for “listed property”, which is defined in section

280F(d)(4) to include property used as a means of transportation,

the taxpayer must satisfy the strict substantiation requirements

of section 274(d).   See Whalley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-

533; see also sec. 280F(d)(1); sec. 1.179-1(d)(3), Income Tax

Regs.   Section 274(d) requires the taxpayer to substantiate the

amount, time, place, and business purpose of these expenditures

and to provide adequate records or sufficient evidence to

corroborate his own statement.    See sec. 1.274-5T(c)(1),

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

     Petitioner did not maintain a mileage log and did not

provide relevant evidence for the Court to determine the SUV

business use.   Petitioner testified that he used the SUV to

transport himself between his work and a residence.    The costs of

commuting between one’s work and residence are personal expenses

and do not qualify as deductible business expenses.    Sec. 262;

Fausner v. Commissioner, 413 U.S. 838, 839 (1973); sec. 1.262-

1(b)(5), Income Tax Regs.   The record contains no evidence from

which we can determine the business mileage amount, if any, of
                                 - 5 -

the SUV.   Petitioner has satisfied neither the section 274(d)

substantiation requirements nor the predominant use requirement.

Neither taxpayers nor the Court may estimate permissible

deductions that do not satisfy the strict substantiation

requirements of section 274(d).    See Sanford v. Commissioner, 50

T.C. 823, 827-828 (1968), affd. 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969).

Petitioners are not entitled to the section 179 deduction

claimed.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                         Decision will be entered for

                                  respondent.
