                          T.C. Memo. 1997-208



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              STEVE AND LURA PASHARIKOFF, Petitioners v.
             COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



        Docket No. 12996-96.                Filed May 5, 1997.



        Steve Pasharikoff, pro se.

        David D. Choi, for respondent.



                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


        DINAN, Special Trial Judge:      This case was heard pursuant

to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and

182.1




        1
          Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are
to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the taxable year in
issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.
                               - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' Federal

income tax for 1993 in the amount of $2,509.

     After a concession by petitioners,2 the issue remaining for

decision is whether petitioners are entitled to deductions for

ordinary and necessary expenses for travel while away from home

in the pursuit of a trade or business.

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

The stipulations of fact and attached exhibits are incorporated

herein by this reference.   Petitioners resided in Downers Grove,

Illinois, on the date the petition was filed in this case.       All

references to petitioner in the singular are to Steve

Pasharikoff.

     In 1993, petitioner traveled to Miami, Florida, from his

home in Illinois to help his nephew repair property damage caused

by Hurricane Andrew.   Petitioner shared a friend's one-bedroom

condominium, where he slept on a pullout couch.

     Petitioner worked for Liberty Drywall, Inc. while he was in

Florida.   His job entailed supervising various construction sites

and delivering building materials.     Liberty Drywall, Inc.

provided petitioner with a truck for driving from his living

quarters to and between construction sites.     As noted supra,

petitioner concedes that he received $8,930 in self-employment

income from Liberty Drywall, Inc. during 1993.     Petitioner,

     2
          Petitioner husband concedes that he received and failed
to report $8,930 in self-employment income for 1993, as
determined by respondent in the statutory notice of deficiency.
                                - 3 -

however, claims that he is entitled to offset such income with

deductions for living expenses paid while he was working in

Florida.

     Deductions are strictly a matter of legislative grace, and

petitioners bear the burden of proving their entitlement to any

deductions claimed.    Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner,

503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87

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

general, deductions for personal living expenses are disallowed

under section 262.

     Section 162(a)(2) allows deductions for traveling expenses

if the expenses are:   (1) ordinary and necessary; (2) incurred

while away from home; and (3) incurred in pursuit of a trade or

business.   Bochner v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 824, 827 (1977).     The

purpose behind the deduction for expenses paid while a taxpayer

is away from home is to ease the burden on the taxpayer who

incurs additional and duplicate living expenses.    Rosenspan v.

United States, 438 F.2d 905, 912 (2d Cir. 1971); Tucker v.

Commissioner, 55 T.C. 783, 786 (1971).

     Petitioner testified that he paid $500 per month as rent for

his living quarters, in addition to other living expenses such as

food, laundry, and gasoline for his truck.   Petitioner also

testified that he paid $1,500 to repair the truck provided to him

by Liberty Drywall Inc.   Petitioner, however, failed to produce

any receipts, documentary evidence, or witnesses at trial in

support of his alleged expenses.   It is well established that, in
                                 - 4 -

the absence of corroborating evidence, we are not required to

accept the self-serving and unverified testimony of a taxpayer.

Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 212 (1992); Tokarski

v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).

     Moreover, section 274(d) provides that no deduction is

allowable under section 162 or 212 for any traveling expenses,

including meals and lodging while away from home, or with respect

to any listed property, defined in section 280F(d)(4) to include

property used as a means of transportation, unless the taxpayer

complies with strict substantiation rules.       Sec. 274(d)(1), (4).

In particular, the taxpayer must substantiate the amount, time,

place, and business purpose of the expenses by adequate records

or by sufficient evidence corroborating his own statement.       Sec.

274(d); sec. 1.274-5T(b)(2), (c), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50

Fed. Reg. 46014, 46016 (Nov. 6, 1985).

     Based on the limited record in this case, we find that

petitioners have failed to adequately substantiate petitioner's

alleged expenses in accordance with the requirements of section

274(d).    We therefore hold that petitioners are not entitled to

deductions for expenses allegedly paid while petitioner worked in

Florida.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                              Decision will be entered

                                         for respondent.
