                        T.C. Memo. 2005-207



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



             DANIEL R. ALLEMEIER, JR., Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 19320-03.             Filed August 31, 2005.



     Daniel R. Allemeier, Jr., pro se.

     Hans F. Famularo and Loren B. Mark, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     KROUPA, Judge:   Respondent determined a $4,8721 deficiency

in petitioner’s Federal income tax for 2001 and a $974 accuracy-




     1
      All monetary amounts have been rounded to the nearest
dollar.
                                 - 2 -

related penalty.     After concessions,2 the issues for decision

are:

       1.   Whether petitioner may deduct expenses incurred to earn

a master’s degree in business administration (MBA).       We hold that

he may deduct education-related, but not parking, expenses.

       2.   Whether petitioner substantiated $40 in tax preparation

fees and $2,460.86 in non-educational unreimbursed employee

business expenses.     We hold that he did not.

       3.   Whether petitioner is liable for the section 66623

accuracy-related penalty for 2001.       We hold that he is not.

                           FINDINGS OF FACT

       The parties have stipulated some facts.     The stipulation of

facts and the accompanying exhibits are incorporated by this

reference and are so found.     Petitioner resided in Pacific Grove,

California, at the time he filed his petition.4




       2
      Petitioner conceded $833.14 of $17,500 that he claimed as
education “business expenses” on Form 2016-EZ, Unreimbursed
Employee Business Expenses. Petitioner also conceded a $1,174
State income tax refund that he did not report on his return for
2001. Sec. 111. Respondent conceded the balance of the State
income tax refund determined in the 2001 deficiency notice.
       3
      All 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, unless otherwise
indicated.
       4
      Petitioner has lived in Las Vegas, Nev., since August 2004.
He telecommutes to work.
                                 - 3 -

     Petitioner has been a Selane Products, Inc.5 (Selane

Products) employee since 1996.    Selane Products is an orthodontic

and pediatric laboratory that specializes in making removable

orthodontic appliances.   It employed about 75 people at the time

of trial and is located in Chatsworth, California.

     When Selane Products hired petitioner, it needed salespeople

with expertise to sell a newly manufactured mouth guard.

Petitioner, with his educational background in sports medicine,

was an ideal fit.

     Initially, petitioner was hired part-time as a salesperson

to sell a single product, a protective mouthguard.       His job

titles at the time were “Sports Medicine Consultant” and

“Director of Intact Mouthguards.”        The following year, in 1997,

petitioner graduated from Wingate University with a bachelor’s

degree in sports medicine and began to work for Selane Products

full-time.   Petitioner’s responsibilities ranged from making

sales calls by phone and managing small budgets to working

directly with dentists and athletic trainers to educate them on

the importance of properly fitted mouth guards.




     5
      Selane Products is composed of four divisions. First, the
Space Maintainers Laboratory fabricates custom dental appliances.
Second, the Smile Foundation provides doctors educational and
marketing opportunities. Third, Second Opinion provides
diagnostic services. Fourth, Success Essentials supplies the
dentistry products.
                               - 4 -

     By all accounts, petitioner excelled in his duties at Selane

Products, and in a few years he became a leading salesman for the

company.   Dr. Rob Veis (Dr. Veis), chief executive officer of

Selane Products and petitioner’s boss, testified that petitioner

had “incredible potential,” was a “quick learner,” and had

“excellent business skills.”   As a promising young employee,

petitioner was rewarded with additional responsibilities.

     While originally hired to sell a single product,

petitioner’s duties expanded to encompass other dentistry

products and services of Selane Products.   For instance,

petitioner was tasked with designing marketing strategies to sell

company products, organizing informational seminars, and

traveling extensively to meet new staff, set up seminars, and

promote Selane Products in talks he delivered at dentistry-

related conventions.6   Petitioner performed these duties before

obtaining a graduate degree.

     Petitioner decided to pursue an MBA about 3 years into his

employment with Selane Products.   Dr. Veis7 told petitioner that

pursuing the MBA would speed his advancement within the company

and enhance his business skills.   Selane Products, however, had a


     6
      Selane Products did not reimburse petitioner for any of the
expenses he incurred.
     7
      In September 2004, Dr. Veis wrote a letter stating, in
effect, that Selane Products had encouraged petitioner to pursue
the MBA because it would increase his ability to continue with
the company.
                                - 5 -

strict policy of not reimbursing employees for education costs or

other business expenses.   Nor did Selane Products require

petitioner to obtain the MBA.

     Petitioner decided to pay for the MBA personally, and in

1999 he commenced studies at Pepperdine University.     He finished

the degree in late 2001, the year at issue.   His MBA

concentration was in business management, and his courses

included accounting for managers, statistics, managerial finance,

marketing management, quantitative methods, negotiation and

conflict resolution, organizational theory and management, and

business strategy.

     Shortly after petitioner enrolled in, but before he

completed, the MBA program, he was promoted to several new

positions at Selane Products.   Petitioner was promoted to

Marketing Manager, Managing Director of the Appliance Therapy

Practitioners Association, Head of the SMILE Foundation, Practice

Development Consultant, and Project Development Consultant.    In

these new capacities, petitioner’s duties expanded and included

analyzing financial reports, designing action plans for sales,

and evaluating the effectiveness of marketing campaigns.8


     8
      An “employee profile” from Selane Products summarizes
petitioner’s work history as follows: (1) From 1996-1997,
petitioner worked in the marketing department in the position of
“Intact Sales”; (2) from 1998-2000, petitioner worked in the
marketing department in the position of “Sales/Marketing”; and
(3) from 2000 through 2003, petitioner worked in the sales
                                                   (continued...)
                                - 6 -

Petitioner performed many of these same functions before he

earned his MBA.   Petitioner remained a full-time employee of

Selane Products while in the MBA program.

     Petitioner deducted his MBA-related expenses on his Schedule

A, Itemized Deductions, on Form 2016-EZ, Unreimbursed Employee

Business Expenses, which he timely filed along with his

electronic Federal income tax return for 2001.    Petitioner also

incurred substantial business expenses traveling for Selane

Products that he deducted on his Schedule A.

     Specifically, petitioner deducted $17,5009 of tuition

expenses and $231 of parking fees associated with his education.

In addition, petitioner deducted business-related expenses of

$104 in vehicle expenses, $1,091 in travel expenses, and $113 in

meal expenses.    Petitioner also deducted $40 of tax preparation

fees on his Schedule A.

     Respondent disallowed petitioner’s deductions and mailed him

a deficiency notice on October 1, 2003.   In the notice,

respondent determined a $4,872 deficiency and $974 accuracy-

related penalty under section 6662(a) for 2001.   Petitioner filed

a timely petition.




     8
      (...continued)
management department in the position of “Sales/Marketing.”
     9
      See infra note 15.
                                - 7 -

                               OPINION

     Respondent disallowed the claimed employee business expenses

and determined that petitioner was liable for an accuracy-related

penalty.   Petitioner asserts that he may deduct MBA-related

expenses and other non-education business expenses, and that he

is not liable for the penalty because he acted with reasonable

cause and in good faith in taking the deductions.    We address

each issue in turn.    We begin with the burden of proof.

A.   Burden of Proof

     At trial, the Court found, and petitioner conceded, that

petitioner failed to comply with reasonable requests by

respondent for witnesses, information, documents, meetings, and

interviews.10    See Snyder v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-255

(citing H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 240-241 (1998), 1998-3 C.B.

747, 994-995).    Accordingly, section 7491(a) does not shift the

burden of proof to respondent, and petitioner bears the burden to




     10
      This burden may shift to the Commissioner to disprove
entitlement to a claimed deduction if the taxpayer introduces
“credible evidence” complete with the necessary substantiation
and documentation sufficient to fulfill the sec. 7491(a)
requirements. See Snyder v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-255
(citing H. Conf. Rept. 105-599, at 240-241 (1998), 1998-3 C.B.
747, 994-995). We held at trial that petitioner did not meet his
sec. 7491(a) obligations because he missed several meetings with
respondent and failed to respond to several inquiries.
                               - 8 -

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he qualified for

the claimed deductions.11

B.   Whether Petitioner May Deduct His MBA Educational Expenses

     We first determine whether petitioner’s MBA-related expenses

qualify as deductible business expenses.   A taxpayer may deduct

all ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the

taxable year in carrying on a trade or business.   Sec. 162(a).

Educational expenses, specifically, are deductible if the

education maintains or improves skills required by the individual

in his or her employment or other trade or business or meets the

express requirements of the individual’s employer.   Sec. 1.162-

5(a)(1) and (2), Income Tax Regs.

     No deduction is allowed, however, if the taxpayer’s expense

is for education that enables him or her to meet the minimum

educational requirements for qualification in his or her

employment or if the education leads to qualifying the taxpayer

for a new trade or business.   Sec. 1.162-5(b)(2) and (3), Income

Tax Regs.




     11
      The Commissioner’s determinations in a deficiency notice
are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of
proving otherwise. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S.
111, 115 (1933). Deductions are generally a matter of
legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving
he or she is entitled to the claimed deductions. INDOPCO, Inc.
v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v.
Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).
                                - 9 -

       Because the parties agree that the MBA improved petitioner’s

skills, we focus on whether the MBA met the minimum education

requirement of Selane Products or qualified petitioner for a new

trade or business.    In other words, petitioner’s MBA-related

expenses are not deductible if the MBA was a condition precedent

to his employment.    Nor are the expenses deductible if the MBA

qualified petitioner for a new trade or business, regardless of

his intent to enter a new trade or business, and regardless of

whether his duties significantly changed after he obtained the

MBA.    Robinson v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 550, 556-557 (1982);

Bodley v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1357, 1360 (1971); Jungreis v.

Commissioner, 55 T.C. 581, 591 (1970); Schwerm v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 1986-16; sec. 1.162-5(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.

       1.   Whether the MBA Met Minimum Education Requirements of
            Selane Products

       Determining whether an employee meets the minimum education

requirement typically means that an employee must have a

particular degree before being hired or obtain the degree within

a certain period after being hired.     See sec. 1.162-5(b)(2)(iii),

Examples (1), (2), and (3), Income Tax Regs.     Here, respondent

argues that Selane Products had a minimum education requirement,

not for petitioner to begin employment but for petitioner to be

promoted after he was hired, and that requirement was for

petitioner to obtain an MBA.    We disagree.
                                 - 10 -

       We first note that the parties both stipulated on the record

that Selane Products did not expressly require that petitioner

obtain an MBA to continue employment with Selane Products.12     We

must determine, therefore, whether Selane Products conditioned

promotions, rather than employment generally, on petitioner

beginning the MBA program.

       Petitioner’s boss at Selane Products strongly encouraged him

to obtain the MBA.     Petitioner’s boss also speculated that

petitioner might advance faster within Selane Products with the

MBA.    The record does not support respondent’s contention,

however, that petitioner’s promotions were contingent on his

beginning the MBA program.     Encouraging petitioner to obtain the

MBA and speculating that he might advance faster with the MBA is

not tantamount to a requirement that petitioner obtain the MBA.

Moreover, we decline to find that a minimum education requirement

existed merely because petitioner’s promotions happened to

coincide with his enrollment in the MBA program.

       We find no evidence in the record that petitioner was

required to begin the MBA program to receive the promotions at

issue.      Nor do we discern that a requirement existed on the facts



       12
      Inexplicably, while a letter in evidence emphatically
states that “Daniel R. Allemeier, Jr. is in fact required to earn
a graduate degree in order to maintain employment with Selane
Products, Inc.,” the parties stipulated: “An MBA did not meet an
express requirement of Selane Products as a condition to
petitioner’s retention with Selane Products.”
                              - 11 -

and circumstances, particularly where petitioner was promoted

before he completed the MBA program.    We hold therefore that

neither petitioner’s enrollment in the MBA program nor his

completion of the program met a minimum education requirement of

Selane Products.   The more difficult question, rather, is whether

the MBA qualified petitioner for a new trade or business.

     2.   Whether the MBA Qualified Petitioner for a New Trade or
          Business

     We must next determine whether petitioner’s MBA qualified

him to perform a trade or business that he was unqualified to

perform before he earned the MBA.   Whether an education qualifies

a taxpayer for a new trade or business depends upon the tasks and

activities he or she was qualified to perform before the

education and those that he or she was qualified to perform

afterwards.   See Glenn v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 270, 275 (1974);

Weiszmann v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 1106, 1110 (1969), affd. per

curiam 443 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1971).    The Court has repeatedly

disallowed education expenses where the education qualifies the

taxpayer to perform “significantly” different tasks and

activities.   Browne v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 723, 726 (1980)

(citing Diaz v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 1067, 1074 (1978), affd.

without published opinion 607 F.2d 995 (2d Cir. 1979)); Glenn v.

Commissioner, supra.   The relevant inquiry is whether the

taxpayer is objectively qualified in a new trade or business.

See Robinson v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 550, 554-556 (1982); Glenn
                               - 12 -

v. Commissioner, supra; Weiler v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 398, 401-

402 (1970); sec. 1.162-5, Income Tax Regs.

     Respondent claims that petitioner’s evolving duties and

promotions after he enrolled in the MBA program demonstrate that

petitioner was qualified for and indeed entered a new trade or

business at Selane Products once he began the MBA program.

Respondent argues that petitioner’s trade or business before the

MBA was principally sales related and involved only limited

managerial and financial duties, but that once petitioner began

the MBA program he advanced to numerous other jobs and was given

advanced managerial, marketing, and financial duties, all of

which were “significantly” different from the duties he performed

before enrolling.    In sum, respondent argues that the MBA

qualified petitioner for the specific new trade or business of

“advanced marketing and finance management.”

     Petitioner disagrees and argues that the MBA enhanced and

maintained skills he already used in his job, but did not qualify

him for a new trade or business or for any particular promotions.

Petitioner argues that the MBA merely capitalized on his

abilities that he had before beginning the program, giving him a

better understanding of financials, costs analyses, marketing,

and advertising.    After careful consideration, we agree with

petitioner.
                               - 13 -

     Petitioner was hired by Selane Products for his experience

in sports medicine, and he was hired, at first, to sell a sports-

related product.   Petitioner excelled in his duties and was

rewarded with increased responsibility, including management,

marketing, and finance-related tasks.   The record establishes

that he performed these myriad tasks before he enrolled in the

MBA program.   Once he enrolled, but before he finished the MBA

program, he was promoted to new positions involving more complex

tasks, but still involving the same marketing, finance, and

management duties.

     Simply acquiring new titles or abilities does not

necessarily constitute the entry into a new trade or business.

See Glenn v. Commissioner, supra.   The “commonsense approach”,

rather, requires that a comparison be made between the types of

activities that the taxpayer was qualified to perform before

acquiring a particular title or degree with those that he or she

was qualified to perform afterwards.    Reisinger v. Commissioner,

71 T.C. 568, 574 (1979); Davis v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 1014,

1019 (1976); Glenn v. Commissioner, supra; Weiszmann v.

Commissioner, supra at 1109.   If the activities are significantly

different, then the educational expenses are disallowable.       Glenn

v. Commissioner, supra.   This is an objective test.   Diaz v.

Commissioner, 70 T.C. 1067, 1073 (1978); Taubman v. Commissioner,

60 T.C. 814, 817 (1973); see sec. 1.162-5, Income Tax Regs.
                                - 14 -

     Petitioner’s business after enrolling in the MBA program did

not significantly change.   After completing the MBA program,

petitioner established with testimony that his business involved

the same general activities that he performed before enrolling in

the program, activities involving sales, marketing, and

management.   While petitioner was awarded with new positions and

titles after he enrolled in the program and while the MBA may

have sped his advancement within Selane Products, the basic

nature of his duties did not significantly change.   The MBA

rather improved preexisting skills that petitioner used before

enrolling in the MBA program.

     We also distinguish our facts from cases involving taxpayers

embarking on a course of study that qualified them for a

professional certification or license.   Courts considering those

factors have often found that the education expenses were not

deductible, even where the taxpayer performed many of the same

activities before the education.    For instance, the Court denied

taxpayers’ deduction for law school expenses on four occasions

because law was a field of study that led the taxpayers to

qualify for the new trade or business of being an attorney.     See

Bodley v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1357 (1971); Weiler v.

Commissioner, supra; Weiszmann v. Commissioner, supra at 1110-

1111; Galligan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-150, affd. 61
                              - 15 -

Fed. Appx. 314 (8th Cir. 2003).13   Petitioner’s MBA was not a

course of study leading him to qualify for a professional

certification or license.

     We find two cases particularly instructive.   On one

occasion, our Court considered whether an MBA degree qualified a

taxpayer for a new trade or business.   See Blair v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 1980-488.   In that case, the taxpayer was employed as

a personnel manager while taking courses toward an MBA.     We found

that the taxpayer was entitled to deduct tuition expenses because

the courses improved the taxpayer’s job skills and did not

qualify the taxpayer for a new trade or business.14   Id.


     13
      Courts have found similarly where the course of study led
taxpayers to qualify for professional certifications. For
instance, the Court has found that a licensed public accountant
is in a different trade or business from a certified public
accountant. See Glenn v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 270, 275 (1974).
The Court has also found that a pharmacist intern is in a
different trade or business from a registered pharmacist, even
where they each perform many of the same tasks and activities.
See Antzoulatos v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1975-327.
     14
      We denied deductions for MBA expenses in two other cases
on the basis that the taxpayer had not already been established
in a trade or business. See Link v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 460,
463-464 (1988), affd. 869 F.2d 1491 (6th Cir. 1989); Schneider v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-753; cf. Sherman v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1977-301. This is distinguishable from our case where
petitioner had worked for Selane Products prior to and throughout
the MBA program. In addition, our facts are distinguishable from
a case in which we denied MBA expense deductions where the
taxpayer’s duties were technical before enrolling in the MBA
program and managerial afterwards. See McIlvoy v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1979-248; see also Hudgens v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1997-33 (managing assets in a trust company differs significantly
from researching tax issues and preparing tax returns for an
                                                   (continued...)
                               - 16 -

Similarly, in another case before our Court, we held that a

taxpayer was allowed to deduct the educational expenses

associated with a master of science degree in administration

where the studies provided the taxpayer with a broad general

background in management and business administration, activities

that were already components of the taxpayer’s work activities.

See Beatty v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-196.    As in Blair and

Beatty, petitioner’s MBA courses provided him with a general

background to perform tasks and activities that he had performed

previously at Selane Products.

     We also decline to find as an objective matter that the MBA

qualified petitioner in a “new” trade or business, where

petitioner had substantial work experience directly related to

his MBA coursework.    See Robinson v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 550,

554-556 (1982); Glenn v. Commissioner, supra at 275; Weiler v.

Commissioner, 54 T.C. 398, 401-402 (1970); sec. 1.162-5, Income

Tax Regs.   The MBA qualified petitioner to perform the same

general duties he performed before enrolling in the MBA program.

     Accordingly, we find that petitioner’s MBA did not meet a

minimum education requirement of Selane Products.   Nor do we find

that the MBA qualified petitioner to perform a new trade or




     14
      (...continued)
accounting firm).
                                - 17 -

business.    Petitioner therefore may deduct the amount of MBA

tuition expenses that he substantiated.15

C.   Whether Petitioner Adequately Substantiated Tax Preparation
     Fees and Unreimbursed Employee Business Expenses

     We next address whether petitioner may deduct non-education

expenses and tax preparation fees.       Taxpayers do not have an

inherent right to take deductions.       Deductions are a matter of

legislative grace, and taxpayers must establish their right to

take them.    Deputy v. du Pont, 308 U.S. 488, 493 (1940); New

Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).

Taxpayers must substantiate any deductions and bear the burden of

substantiation.     Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 89-90

(1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976).

     In addition to the substantiation requirements for ordinary

and necessary business expenses, taxpayers are subject to more

stringent substantiation requirements for certain expenses.         See

secs. 162(a), 274(d).    For instance, taxpayers must strictly

substantiate the nature and amount of the meal, travel, and

vehicle expenses.    See sec. 274(d).     For these expenses, a

taxpayer must maintain adequate records or produce sufficient

evidence to corroborate his or her statements to substantiate the



     15
      Our finding pertains only to $15,745 in tuition-related
expenses and not $231 in parking fees petitioner associates with
his education, which he failed to substantiate. Petitioner
originally deducted $17,500 in tuition expenses, which respondent
later reduced to $15,745, without objection.
                               - 18 -

amount, time and place, and business purpose of the expense, as

well as the business relationship to the taxpayer of the persons

involved in the claimed expenses.    Id. (flush language).

Adequate records require the taxpayer to maintain a diary, a log,

or a similar record, and documentary evidence that, in

combination, are sufficient to establish each element of each

expenditure or use.   Sec. 1.274-5T(c)(2)(i), Temporary Income Tax

Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46017 (Nov. 6, 1985).   A record must

generally be written contemporaneously with the expenditure.

Sec. 1.274-5T(c)(2)(ii)(A), Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra.

Against this background, we now analyze whether petitioner

satisfied substantiation requirements for his claimed deductions.

     Overall, petitioner claimed $17,500 in business expenses of

which he conceded $833.   Of the remaining $16,667, $15,745 was

attributable to the tuition expenses that petitioner

substantiated, for which we granted a deduction.   The remaining

amounts are $922 in miscellaneous business expenses, $40 in tax

preparation fees, $104 in vehicle expenses, $1,091 in travel

expenses, and $113 in meal expenses.

     Petitioner contends that he lost records supporting expense

deductions for the tax preparation fees and miscellaneous

business expenses.    He has failed to reconstruct adequately those

records or otherwise corroborate those items.   These expenses are
                                - 19 -

therefore unsubstantiated and disallowed.16   See secs. 162(a),

212(1); Hradesky v. Commissioner, supra at 89-90.

     As for the meal, travel, and vehicle expenses that require

strict substantiation, respondent contends that petitioner failed

to substantiate strictly $1,091 in travel expenses and $113 in

meal expenses.   Respondent argues that while petitioner

documented his payment of some of the amounts charged, he

substantiated neither the “business purpose” of the expenses nor

the “business relationship” to him of any persons entertained.

We agree that petitioner has not strictly substantiated these

expenses.

     Petitioner frequently traveled on business and incurred meal

and travel expenses, which his employer did not reimburse.17      Yet

petitioner substantiated only the time and amount of certain of

these expenses, and of those amounts he did not adequately

establish the business relationship between the expenses and his

business for Selane Products.    See sec. 274(d) (flush language).

     Petitioner substantiated certain expenses with credit card

receipts and a personal calendar.    While some of those expenses

coincided with business functions, petitioner did not explain the



     16
      Petitioner gave us no basis to apply the Cohan rule to
estimate his expenses. See Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540,
543-544 (2d Cir. 1930).
     17
      Petitioner incurred the vehicle expenses for travel
between two Selane Products buildings.
                                 - 20 -

business relationship between the charges and the trade or

business of Selane Products.18    For example, petitioner’s credit

card statement listed a charge for “Tavern on the Green” on

November 29, which coincided with a calendar notation for

“greater New York Dental Meeting.”        We do not know with whom

petitioner dined, whether the dinner had a business purpose, or

the nature of the relationship, if any, between the person

entertained and petitioner’s work for Selane Products.

Petitioner’s credit card statement also listed a charge for

“Monterey Plaza Hotel” on October 29, which coincided with a

calendar notation for “Monterey Meeting.”        We are left to

speculate as to the nature and business purpose of the Monterey

Plaza charge.

     For these charges, petitioner was subject to stricter

substantiation requirements than for his general business

expenses.   We find that petitioner has failed to satisfy those

requirements.   Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s

determinations regarding petitioner’s unreimbursed business

expenses.




     18
      Credit card receipts reflect that petitioner paid $671.87,
$231.40, and $100.50 for a hotel, rental car, and airline fare,
which coincided with a business convention. Petitioner similarly
substantiated that he paid $130.33 and $116.66 in restaurant
charges during another business convention.
                              - 21 -

D.   Whether Petitioner Is Liable for Accuracy-Related
     Penalties Under Section 6662(a)

     Respondent determined that petitioner is liable for an

accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) with respect to

the underpayment attributable to petitioner’s claimed business

expenses.   We disagree.

     Respondent has the burden of production under section

7491(c) and must come forward with sufficient evidence that it is

appropriate to impose the penalty.     See sec. 7491(c); Higbee v.

Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446-447 (2001).     The accuracy-related

penalty under section 6662(a) does not apply to any portion of an

underpayment, however, if it is shown that there was reasonable

cause for, and that the taxpayer acted in good faith with respect

to, that portion.   Sec. 6664(c)(1); sec. 1.6664-4(b), Income Tax

Regs.   The determination of whether the taxpayer acted with

reasonable cause and in good faith depends on the pertinent facts

and circumstances, including the taxpayer’s efforts to assess his

or her proper tax liability and the knowledge and experience of

the taxpayer.   Sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.

     We do not find petitioner liable for a penalty on the

underpayment attributable to the business expenses.     Petitioner

prevailed on the tuition expenses he substantiated.     As for the

remaining expenses, petitioner established at trial that he

incurred substantial business expenses for which he was not

reimbursed.   Were it not for a loss of records in moves
                              - 22 -

petitioner made in the years leading up to trial, we believe that

petitioner could have substantiated many of the deductions.

Moreover, petitioner contemporaneously recorded the time and

amount of several business expenses.    Though the records were

insufficient to meet the strict substantiation requirements, we

find that he acted with reasonable cause and in good faith in

taking the deductions.   Secs. 162(a), 274(d).   Accordingly, we

decline to impose a penalty upon petitioner.

     In reaching our holding, we have considered all arguments

made, and, to the extent not mentioned, we conclude that they are

moot, irrelevant, or without merit.    To reflect the foregoing and

the concessions of the parties,


                                           Decision will be entered

                                      under Rule 155.
