                   T.C. Summary Opinion 2011-85



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               MICHAEL BRUCE WILSON, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 9285-10S.                Filed July 6, 2011.



     Michael Bruce Wilson, pro se.

     Christina L. Cook, for respondent.



     ARMEN, 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 reviewable by any



     1
        Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent 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.
                                - 2 -

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

for any other case.

     Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s 2007

Federal income tax of $1,643.   The issue for decision is whether

petitioner is entitled to a deduction for car and truck expenses

claimed on a Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business.   We hold

that petitioner is not entitled to such deduction.

                            Background

     Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so

found.   We incorporate by reference the parties’ stipulation of

facts and accompanying exhibits.   Petitioner resided in the State

of Minnesota when the petition was filed.

     During 2007 petitioner was an employee of Bolger

Publications.   Petitioner was also a movie producer and reported

the income and expenses therefrom on a Schedule C.   In addition,

petitioner started a film production company called Odd Lamps

Productions (Odd Lamps) and reported income and expenses

therefrom on a Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss.

     Petitioner maintained a handwritten log of miles driven for

Odd Lamps, which handwritten log he later typed.   The log

contains entries listing the date, beginning and ending odometer

readings, total miles driven, and an abbreviation listing either

the destination, project, or person’s name for which the miles

were driven.
                                - 3 -

     On his Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for

2007 petitioner reported wages of $15,662 attributable to his

employment with Bolger Publications.       Petitioner attached to his

return a Schedule C for his movie producer business.      On the

Schedule C petitioner reported gross income of $36,257, but

claimed a net profit of $10,822, which resulted from a number of

deductions, specifically including $5,820 of car and truck

expenses and $14,000 of other expenses for “224 gas miles est

12000”.   In addition to the expenses listed on the Schedule C for

his movie producer business, petitioner listed depreciation

expenses of $10,000 on the Schedule E for Odd Lamps.2      Petitioner

did not provide any receipts for oil changes or vehicle repairs.

     In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed the

deduction of $5,820 claimed by petitioner for car and truck

expenses on the Schedule C.

                              Discussion

     Generally, the Commissioner’s determinations are presumed

correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that those

determinations are erroneous.    Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering,

290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).   Although section 7491(a) may serve to

shift the burden of proof to the Commissioner under certain


     2
        We note that petitioner claimed a “total income” of
$32,318 on his Form 1040 at line 22 and combined business
expenses of $35,435 on his Schedules C and E. At trial,
petitioner testified that his business expenses in 2007 were more
than $55,000.
                                - 4 -

circumstances, it does not do so here for at least three

independent reasons:    Petitioner failed to raise the matter;

petitioner failed to comply with recordkeeping and substantiation

requirements, see sec. 7491(a)(2)(A) and (B); and petitioner

failed to introduce the requisite quality of evidence, see sec.

7491(a)(1).   Accordingly, petitioner bears the burden of proof.

     Deductions are strictly a matter of legislative grace, and a

taxpayer bears the burden of proving his or her entitlement to

the deductions claimed.    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).     This includes the burden of

substantiation.   Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 90 (1975),

affd. per curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976).

     Section 6001 further requires taxpayers to maintain books

and records sufficient to substantiate the amounts of the

deductions claimed.    Sec. 1.6001-1(a), (e), Income Tax Regs.      If

a taxpayer is unable to fully substantiate the expenses incurred,

but there is evidence that deductible expenses were incurred, the

Court may under certain circumstances allow a deduction based

upon an approximation of expenses.      Cohan v. Commissioner, 39

F.2d 540, 544 (2d Cir. 1930).    But see Williams v. United States,

245 F.2d 559, 560-561 (5th Cir. 1957); Vanicek v. Commissioner,

85 T.C. 731, 742-743 (1985).
                               - 5 -

     However, in the case of expenses relating to the use of

listed property, specifically including any passenger automobile

or other property used as a means of transportation, section

274(d) imposes stringent substantiation requirements to document

the nature and amount of such expenses.   Sec. 280F(d)(4)(A)(i)

and (ii), (5); Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 827 (1968),

affd. per curiam 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969); Larson v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-187; sec. 1.274-5T(a), Temporary

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

superseding the so-called Cohan rule and making it inapplicable).

Thus, in order to satisfy these strict substantiation

requirements, the taxpayer must maintain adequate records or

sufficient corroborating evidence to establish each element of an

expenditure.   Sec. 274(d); sec. 1.274-5T(b)(6), (c)(2)(i),

Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46016, 46017 (Nov. 6,

1985).   Elements of an expenditure include:   (1) The amount of

such expense; (2) the time and place of the expense; and (3) the

business purpose of the expense.   Sec. 274(d).   If the listed

property is used for both personal and business purposes,

deductions are disallowed unless a taxpayer establishes the

amount of the business use of the property in question.     Kinney

v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-287; sec. 1.274-5T(b)(6)(i)(B),

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

     On his Schedule C for his movie producer business,

petitioner claimed a deduction for car and truck expenses of

$5,820, as well as a deduction for other expenses of $14,000 for

“224 gas miles 12000 est”.   The only documentation petitioner

provided for the car and truck expenses claimed on the Schedule C

was the typed mileage log for Odd Lamps.   Petitioner testified

that his certified public accountant had mistakenly filed a

Schedule E for Odd Lamps and that such business expenses should

have been claimed on the Schedule C.   Petitioner also testified

that the mileage claimed under other expenses on the Schedule C

was an estimate and that the mileage log he presented indicates

that the mileage claimed should have been “about 14,000” miles

and not the “lowball number” of 12,000 miles.   Petitioner further

testified that he had no receipts for oil changes or vehicle

repairs because he has changed his car oil since he was 17 years

of age, and he had a mechanic for a neighbor who assisted him

with any necessary vehicle repairs.

     The record therefore suggests that petitioner deducted the

mileage log expenses for Odd Lamps twice on his Schedule C:    Once

under car and truck expenses and once under other expenses.    But

a fundamental tax principle is that a taxpayer cannot receive a

double deduction or claim a double credit for the same item.     See

United States v. Skelly Oil Co., 394 U.S. 678, 684 (1969);

Charles Ilfeld Co. v. Hernandez, 292 U.S. 62, 68 (1934); Rome I,
                                 - 7 -

Ltd. v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 697, 704 (1991) (“Double deductions

are impermissible * * * absent a clear declaration of intent of

Congress.”); see also sec. 1.161-1, Income Tax Regs. (“Double

deductions are not permitted.”).

     We thus conclude that petitioner has failed to establish

that he is entitled to the deduction for car and truck expenses

claimed on his Schedule C.3    See also Tokarski v. Commissioner,

87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).   Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s

determination disallowing the deduction for car and truck

expenses claimed by petitioner on his 2007 tax return.

                              Conclusion

     We have considered all of the arguments made by petitioner,

and, to the extent that we have not specifically addressed those

arguments, we conclude that they are without merit.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.




     3
        Although not at issue in this case, we note that
petitioner’s Schedule C seems to indicate that petitioner claimed
a deduction of $14,000 for 12,000 miles driven. Under Rev. Proc.
2006-49, sec. 5.01, 2006-2 C.B. 936, 938, the standard mileage
rate for 2007 was 48.5 cents per mile.
