                   T.C. Summary Opinion 2011-74



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  LONGY O. ANYANWU, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 1460-09S.              Filed June 21, 2011.



     Longy O. Anyanwu, pro se.

     Evan H. Kaploe, for respondent.



     MORRISON, Judge:   This case was heard pursuant to section

7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was

filed.   Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered

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

be treated as precedent for any other case.1



     1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all further references in this
opinion to sections are to the Internal Revenue Code as in effect
for the tax year 2005, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                 -2-

     The IRS issued Longy O. Anyanwu a notice of deficiency

pursuant to section 6212 showing a deficiency in income tax of

$1,628 for the tax year 2005.    Anyanwu timely petitioned the

Court for redetermination of the deficiency under section

6213(a).    The issue we resolve in this opinion is whether Anyanwu

is entitled to miscellaneous itemized deductions of $18,190 and

an $850 deduction claimed for “printer, ink cartridges, and

paper”.    We determine that the deductions are not allowable.

     Anyanwu filed a joint income-tax return with his then wife,

Fidelia E. Anyanwu, for 2005.    The return reported that the

couple earned wages and salary of $48,992.      The entire $48,992

consisted of the wages Anyanwu received from Trinity Christian

College, where he taught computer science.      The adjusted gross

income reported on the return was $41,159.      Itemized deductions

totaled $25,981.    The Anyanwus claimed four deductions for

personal exemptions:    one for Longy Anyanwu, one for Fidelia

Anyanwu, one for a daughter, and one for a brother.      The four

personal-exemption deductions totaled $12,800.      The taxable

income reported on the return was $2,378, which is equal to

$41,159 - $25,981 - (4 x $3,200).      The tax reported was $239.

But because the Anyanwus claimed an education credit of $239,

they reported a zero tax liability.      The Anyanwus reported that

they had made prepayments of $3,159.      Their return reported that

the IRS owed them a refund of $3,159.
                                     -3-

     The $25,981 of itemized deductions reported on Schedule A,

Itemized Deductions, were divided into two categories:         (1)

miscellaneous itemized deductions, which are subject to the 2-

percent-of-AGI “floor” of section 67, and (2) all other itemized

deductions.   A summary of the Anyanwus’ claimed miscellaneous

itemized deductions follows:


                  Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions
          Vehicle expense                             $4,855
          Parking, fees, tolls, etc.                    300
          Travel expense (away from
            home)                                     4,000
          Other business expense                      7,065
          50% of meals and
            entertainment                               400
          “prof. org.,/fees, etc.”                     1200
          Tax preparation fees                          120
          Other unnamed expenses                        250
              Total                                   18,190
              2% AGI                                    823
              Total after subtracting 2%              17,367
                                      -4-

A summary of the Anyanwus’ claimed nonmiscellaneous itemized

deductions follows:

                          Itemized Deductions Other
                    Than Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions
           Medical and dental expenses
             ($4,000 before subtraction of
             7.5% AGI)                                       $913
           Taxes paid                                        1,853
           Charitable contributions (cash)                   1,264
           Charitable contributions
             (noncash)                                        700
           Casualty or theft losses                          3,034
           Printer, ink cartridges, paper                     850
            Total                                            8,614


     The notice of deficiency was issued on October 31, 2008, to

both Mr. and Mrs. Anyanwu.       The notice of deficiency disallowed

the $18,190 in prefloor miscellaneous itemized deductions and the

$850 deduction for “printer, ink cartridges, and paper” claimed

by the Anyanwus.2


     2
      Portions of the notice of deficiency seem to reflect a
determination that all of the Anyanwus’ Schedule A deductions
were disallowed. The Anyanwus reported Schedule A deductions of
$25,981. The notice of deficiency contained a Form 4549, Income
Tax Examination Changes, that stated that there was a $25,981
“[Adjustment] to Income”. The same $25,981 adjustment is
reflected on a Form 886-A, Explanation of Items.

     However, a one-page table attached to the notice of
deficiency reflects that, of the Schedule A deductions claimed on
the return, the IRS made adjustments only to the $18,190 in
prefloor miscellaneous itemized deductions and the $850 deduction
for “printer, ink cartridges, and paper”. In the left column of
the table, the IRS listed all the deductions the Anwanyus claimed
on their Schedule A, and in another column the IRS listed the
                                                   (continued...)
                                -5-

     Anyanwu filed a petition with the Tax Court.   Anyanwu was a

resident of Kansas when he signed the petition.   His wife’s

signature on the petition was not genuine.   Consequently, she was

dismissed from the case.   This left Anwanyu as the only party

besides the IRS.3

     At trial Anyanwu’s testimony and other evidence were

organized differently from the line items and amounts on the

Schedule A.   Consequently, our discussion of Anyanwu’s




     2
      (...continued)
Schedule A deductions as adjusted by the IRS. The deductions
listed in the left column of the table are faithful to the
amounts of the deductions the Anyanwus reported on their Schedule
A, with one exception. The IRS table listed the Anyanwus as
having reported the $850 deduction for “printer, ink cartridges,
and paper” as a miscellaneous itemized deduction. In actuality,
the Anyanwus reported the deduction as an itemized deduction.
Consistent with its (inaccurate) characterization of the Anyanwus
as having claimed the $850 deduction as a miscellaneous itemized
deduction, the table listed the miscellaneous itemized deductions
the Anyanwus claimed as $19,040, instead of the $18,190 claimed
on the return. The table also stated that, after reduction for
the 2 percent floor, the Anyanwus had claimed $18,217 in
miscellaneous itemized deductions. This amount is equal to
$19,040 minus 2 percent of $41,150. Next to the $18,217 amount,
the table listed an adjusted amount of zero. This reduction of
miscellaneous itemized deductions from $18,217 to zero is the
only adjustment listed in the table against any of the line items
on the Anyanwus’ Schedule A.

     Besides the adjustments described above, the notice of
deficiency appears to have made adjustments to the exemptions
reported on the tax return. However, the only issue asserted in
the IRS pretrial memorandum with respect to the entire tax return
is whether the IRS properly disallowed $19,040 in miscellaneous
itemized deductions that had been claimed on the Anyanwus’ 2005
Schedule A. This is the only issue addressed in this opinion.
     3
      Technically, the respondent is the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue (sec. 7803(b)(2)(D)), who is the head of the IRS.
                                 -6-

entitlement to deductions will not correspond to the line items

and amounts on the Schedule A.    And, although the Anyanwus

claimed $18,190 of miscellaneous itemized deductions on their

return, Anyanwu claimed entitlement to only $7,780 at trial.

Consequently, we will consider only the $7,780 of deductions

claimed at trial.

     Anyanwu bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to

the deductions.   This is because a taxpayer generally has the

burden of proving that the determinations in the notice of

deficiency are erroneous.    See Rule 142(a).   Although the burden

of proof is imposed on the IRS if the conditions of section

7491(a) are met, Anyanwu has not shown that these conditions have

been met.    Therefore the burden of proof rests on Anyanwu.

     To satisfy his burden of proof, Anyanwu must prove each

disputed factual proposition by a preponderance of the evidence.

An additional relevant principle is that, if a taxpayer has

proven entitlement to a deduction but fails to establish the

precise amount of the deduction, the Court should estimate the

deduction.    This principle, which was established in Cohan v.

Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930), is subject to

two major exceptions relevant here.    First, no deduction should

be allowed if there is no reasonable basis for estimating the

amount of the deduction.    See Williams v. United States, 245 F.2d
                                -7-

559, 560 (5th Cir. 1957); Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731,

742-743 (1985).   Second, certain deductions are not allowed if

the taxpayer has failed to provide the proof required by section

1.274-5T, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6,

1985).   Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 827-828 (1968),

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

     Anyanwu did not address the $850 deduction for “printer, ink

cartridges, and paper”:   he neither presented proof at trial nor

discussed it in his posttrial brief.   Even if he has not conceded

the deduction, he has failed to show he is entitled to it.     The

$7,780 in deductions to which he claimed entitlement at trial are

for expenses Anyanwu allegedly incurred while performing services

for his employer, Trinity Christian College.    An employee is

entitled to a deduction for all ordinary and necessary expenses

paid in performing services for an employer.    Sec. 162(a).

Expenses for which the employee could claim reimbursement, but

does not, are not deductible.   Podems v. Commissioner, 24 T.C.

21, 22-23 (1955).

     The deductions that Anyanwu claims fall into seven general

categories.   As we explain, Anyanwu is not entitled to any of the

deductions.

     First, Anyanwu argues that he incurred $3,665 for a summer

research project.   A portion of the $3,665 is $120 for two months

of internet service.   Anyanwu produced no contemporaneous records
                                -8-

or receipts demonstrating that he paid for internet service or

that, even if he did pay for internet service, his use of the

service was for a business purpose.   He indicated through

testimony and through a table that he created before trial that

he had spent $120 on purely business-related internet services,

but we did not believe him.   We conclude that he is not entitled

to the deduction for $120 in internet service.

     Another portion of the $3,665 is $360 for two months of

telephone calls.   Anyanwu produced no contemporaneous records or

receipts showing that he incurred the costs of making telephone

calls.   Anyanwu suggested that the IRS trial counsel could have

estimated the costs himself by making telephone calls from the

IRS offices in Kansas City and then using the resulting telephone

bills to reconstruct Anyanwu’s telephone costs.    Such an

experiment would fail to produce any useful results for reasons

that illustrate why Anyanwu is not entitled to a deduction.      The

IRS trial lawyer does not know who Anyanwu telephoned, the length

of calls, the time of day of the calls, or the dates of the

calls.   There is no way for the IRS trial lawyer, or for us, to

estimate the costs of Anyanwu’s telephone calls.    The absence of

information is Anyanwu’s fault, not the IRS’s.    Furthermore,

Anyanwu failed to produce contemporaneous records or receipts

showing which telephone calls were business-related, as opposed

to personal.   He indicated, through testimony and through a table
                                -9-

that he created before trial, that he spent $360 on purely

business-related telephone services, but we did not believe him.

We conclude that he is not entitled to deduct the costs of

telephone calls.

     Another portion of the $3,665 is $3,185 for traveling to

Nigeria for two months from June 7 through August 2, 2005.4    The

costs are not deductible for several reasons.    First, the 2005

trip to Nigeria was primarily personal.    See sec. 1.274-

4(f)(5)(ii), Income Tax Regs. (stating that if a trip is

“primarily personal in nature, the traveling expenses to and from

the destination are not deductible”).     Nigeria is where Anyanwu

grew up.   During the trip, he married Mrs. Anyanwu, a Nigerian.

Second, Anyanwu provided no records or detailed testimony

explaining how he advanced his research agenda while in Nigeria.

Thus, even if the Nigeria trip was not primarily personal, there

is no evidence in the trial record that would allow us to

determine the portion of the trip expenses that had a business

purpose.   Even setting aside Anyanwu’s failure to meet the

substantiation requirements of section 1.274-5T, Temporary Income

Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6, 1985), a point we consider

next, he is not entitled to deduct the cost of the trip.     Third,

of the alleged costs of the trip, only the $1,738.49 cost for the


     4
      The $3,185 is equal to $4,185 minus the $1,000
reimbursement that Anyanwu received from Trinity Christian
College.
                                   -10-

international round-trip airplane ticket to Nigeria is

documented.   No other expenses are documented.    Section 1.274-

5T(c)(1), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46016 (Nov. 6,

1985), requires a taxpayer to prove the amount and other aspects

of a travel expenditure.    The requisite proof must take the form

of adequate records or sufficient evidence corroborating the

taxpayer’s own statement.    Id.    For the trip expenses other than

the $1,738.49 airline ticket, Anyanwu has provided no records

apart from a table he created on the eve of trial.5     Thus, he has

failed to provide the proof required by the regulation.     He is

not entitled to a deduction for any of the costs of the Nigeria

trip.

     Second, Anyanwu argues that he incurred $462 in unreimbursed

costs for a trip to Huntington, Indiana, to attend a conference


     5
      Anyanwu argues that he does not have records of these and
other expenses because his hard disk drive crashed and he was
unable to recover the data. Sec. 1.274-5T(c)(5), Temporary
Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46022 (Nov. 6, 1985), provides
that where the taxpayer establishes that the failure to produce
adequate records is due to the loss of such records through
circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control, such as destruction
by fire, flood, earthquake, or other casualty, the taxpayer may
substantiate a deduction by reasonable reconstruction of
expenditure or use. Sec. 1.274-5T(c)(5), Temporary Income Tax
Regs., supra, does not relieve Anyanwu of the substantiation
requirement of sec. 1.274-5T, Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed.
Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6, 1985). We are not convinced that the
required records were present on Anyanwu’s computer before the
failure of his hard disk drive. Furthermore, Anyanwu has not
reasonably reconstructed his expenses. His testimony and written
evidence were insufficiently detailed to reconstruct the
expenses.
                                 -11-

on June 1 through 4, 2005.     This trip appears to be a business

trip.    However, Anyanwu has not shown that he was not entitled to

reimbursement from his employer for the cost of this trip.

Therefore, the cost of the trip is not deductible.6     See Podems

v. Commissioner, 24 T.C. at 22-23.      Furthermore, only $207 of the

$462 in alleged expenses is documented.     His entitlement to the

rest of the expenses is therefore precluded by the substantiation

requirement of section 1.274-5T, Temporary Income Tax Regs.,

supra.   Even without considering the substantiation requirement,

there is no way of estimating the amount of the other alleged

expenses.   He is therefore not entitled to a deduction for the

cost of the Huntington trip.

     Third, Anyanwu argues that he incurred $1,400 in costs for a

trip to Phoenix, Arizona, to attend a conference on March 1

through 5, 2005.   This trip appears to be a business trip.

However, Anyanwu has failed to demonstrate that he was not

entitled to claim reimbursement from his employer for the cost.

Furthermore, none of the Phoenix expenses are documented and

there is no way of estimating the amount of the deductible


     6
      Anyanwu admits that $180 of the trip costs were actually
reimbursed by his employer. In order to show that he was not
entitled to be reimbursed for the remainder of the expenses of
the Huntington trip (and for the other expenses at issue in this
case), Anyanwu attempted to obtain the policy of Trinity
Christian College regarding reimbursement of faculty expenses.
His request for information was vague and resulted in an
uninformative response from the college.
                                 -12-

expenses for the Phoenix trip.    He is therefore not entitled to a

deduction for the cost of the Phoenix trip.

     Fourth, Anyanwu argues that he incurred $1,390 in costs to

travel to Miami, Florida, for a conference on May 25 through 28,

2005.    This trip appears to be a business trip and Anyanwu has

provided documentary evidence for the trip, thus allowing us to

estimate the cost of the trip.    However, Anyanwu has failed to

demonstrate that he was not entitled to reimbursement for the

Miami trip.    Therefore, he cannot deduct the cost.

     Fifth, Anyanwu argues that he is entitled to a $243

amortization deduction for what he described as “Software/books,

etc.”    Nothing in the record supports the elements of the $243

deduction except for a table that Anyanwu prepared on the eve of

trial.    Anyanwu did not testify under oath that the $243 amount

is correct.    The mere fact that Anyanwu typed this number on a

document before trial is not sufficient to convince us that the

amount is correct.   We have no way of knowing the type of

software and books, their cost, or when they were purchased.7      He

has not shown by a preponderance of evidence that he is entitled

to this $243 deduction.



     7
      The IRS argues that the deduction is barred by the
substantiation requirement of sec. 1.274-5T, Temporary Income Tax
Regs., supra. Setting aside sec. 1.274-5T, Temporary Income Tax
Regs., supra, we have no grounds for determining that Anyanwu is
entitled to an amortization deduction of $243.
                                 -13-

     Sixth, Anyanwu argues that he is entitled to a $360

depreciation deduction for a laptop computer that he allegedly

purchased in 2005 for $1,800.8    A computer is “listed property”.

Sec. 274(d)(4) (disallowing unsubstantiated deductions for listed

property as defined in section 280F(d)(4)); sec.

280F(d)(4)(A)(iv) (“listed property” means computer or peripheral

equipment as defined in section 168(i)(2)(B)); sec. 168(i)(2)(B)

(defining computers and peripheral equipment).     A deduction for a

computer must therefore meet the substantiation requirement of

section 1.274-5T, Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra.     One aspect

of this requirement is that the taxpayer must prove the purchase

price of the listed property.     Sec. 1.274-5T(b)(6)(i)(A),

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

Such proof must take the form of adequate records or sufficient

evidence other than the statement of the taxpayer.     Sec. 1.274-

5T(c)(1), Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra.     The only support

that $360 is the correct deduction is a table prepared by Anyanwu

on the eve of trial.   This table does not satisfy strict

substantiation requirements.     Sec. 1.274-5T(c)(1), Temporary

Income Tax Regs., supra (“the corroborative 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


     8
      The IRS argues that this laptop computer is one of three
computers Anyanwu owned and that it was unnecessary for him to
own so many computers. We need not address this argument.
                                 -14-

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”).      Anyanwu

is not entitled to the $360 deduction.

     Seventh, Anyanwu argues that he is entitled to a $260

depreciation deduction for a desktop computer that he allegedly

purchased on August 15, 2005, for $1,300.      The deduction for the

desktop computer is not allowable for the same reason that the

deduction for the laptop computer is not allowable.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                             Decision will be entered

                                        under Rule 155.
