                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2004-118



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 REGINA MISSOURI, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 20512-03S.             Filed August 30, 2004.



     Regina Missouri, pro se.

     Jason M. Kuratnick, for respondent.


     POWELL, Special Trial Judge:   This case was heard pursuant

to the provisions of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code

in effect at the time the petition was filed.   The decision to be

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

should not be cited as authority.


1
   Unless otherwise indicated, 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 -



     Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,362 in petitioner’s

2001 Federal income tax.   The issue is whether petitioner is

entitled to greater itemized deductions than those allowed by

respondent.   Petitioner resided in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at

the time she filed the petition.

                            Background

     The facts may be summarized as follows.   Petitioner is a

detective with the City of Philadelphia Police Department.

Except for formal occasions, she generally did not wear a

uniform.

     On her 2001 Federal income tax return, petitioner claimed a

charitable contribution deduction of $6,197 and a miscellaneous

deduction, before the application of section 67, of $5,422.

Respondent disallowed $1,259 of the charitable contribution

deduction and $3,678 of the miscellaneous deduction.    The

following amounts are, in whole or in part, in dispute:2

                Uniform cost & laundry         $1,875
                Work shoes & equipment          1,075
                Transportation expenses         1,695


2
   Of the miscellaneous deduction claimed, respondent allowed
$1,744. The notice of deficiency does not indicate which items
were allowed in whole or in part. Petitioner also claimed union
dues ($627) and tax preparation fees ($150). Respondent does not
contest these items totaling $777. The general question then is
whether petitioner has established that she is entitled to
miscellaneous deductions in an amount greater than the difference
between the amount allowed ($1,744) and the amount conceded
($777), or $967.
                                - 3 -

Petitioner has no receipts or other substantiation to support a

charitable contribution deduction for any amount greater than

that allowed by respondent.    Petitioner maintained no log or

diary with respect to the transportation expenses and has no

receipts or other records with respect to the disallowed

miscellaneous deduction.3

                              Discussion

1. Charitable Contribution Deduction.

     Section 170(a) allows a deduction for charitable

contributions “if verified under regulations prescribed by the

Secretary.”   Under the regulations, a taxpayer must maintain for

each contribution either a cancelled check, a receipt, or other

reliable records from the charitable organization.     Sec. 1.170A-

13(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.    Petitioner has no such records

substantiating charitable gifts in an amount larger than that

allowed by respondent.   We sustain respondent’s determination

with respect to this issue.

2. Miscellaneous Deduction.

     Petitioner claimed a deduction for clothing and related

expenses and for the use of her automobile.     Section 162(a)

allows deductions for “ordinary and necessary expenses paid * * *

in carrying on any trade or business”.     Petitioner is in the



3
    Petitioner does not satisfy the requirements of sec. 7491(a).
                                 - 4 -

trade or business of being an employee.       See Fogg v.

Commissioner, 89 T.C. 310 (1987).    While we recognize that

employee business expenses may be deductible, a taxpayer still

must establish that such alleged expenses were made and are

expenses of being an employee.    See Rule 142(a).     In addition,

certain expenses, including travel and automobile expenses, must

be substantiated by adequate records establishing the amount of

such expense, the time and place of such travel or use of “listed

property” that includes automobiles, and the business purpose of

such expense.   See secs. 274(d), 280F(d)(4).      Petitioner has no

records to substantiate the amount of any employee business

expense greater than that allowed by respondent.

     With respect to the deduction claimed for petitioner’s

clothing, a taxpayer may not deduct expenses for clothing, even

though used in the course of business, if the clothing is

suitable for general or personal wear.        Kennedy v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 1970-58, affd. 451 F.2d 1023 (3d Cir. 1971).

Petitioner concedes that the deductions claimed for clothing,

laundry, etc., fall into this category.       We sustain respondent’s

determination with respect to the miscellaneous deduction.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
