News Flash: Tax Court Judges didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. That insight might have occurred to a Virginian after yesterday’s Tax Court decision denying $64,775 in 2010 “car and truck expenses” for a “mobile advertising business” that grossed $7,200 in revenue.
The Virginian worked full-time for Verizon while traveling up a storm — 129,550 miles in 2010, by his own account. Special Trial Judge Dean questioned The Virginian’s work ethic (my emphasis):
The number of hours petitioner worked for Verizon and purportedly drove for his mobile advertising business simply strains credulity. Petitioner’s monthly mileage for 2010 ranged from 7,419 miles to 17,864 miles. Petitioner testified that he drove at approximately 60 miles per hour. If it is possible that he could average 60 miles per hour in the month that he drove 17,864 miles, he spent at least 300 hours on the road that month or almost 10 hours a day. All this while working full time for Verizon.
The judge also has doubts about the business model:
Furthermore, petitioner’s extensive driving does not appear to be ordinary and necessary to his mobile advertising business. Petitioner claims that he drove all over the United States to post fliers and to advertise his own mobile advertising business, even though most of his clients were local clients except one online refinancing company. All the while, petitioner had very little income in relation to the excessive costs he incurred driving to put up flyers. Furthermore, the advertising for his own business appeared to be fruitless, as he never made a profit in any of the six years he engaged in the business, despite incurring great costs traveling to advertise mobile advertising business.
But ultimately none of that mattered, because The Virginian failed to cross the initial threshold for deducting any sort of travel expenses — Section 274:
Notwithstanding whether petitioner’s excessive driving was ordinary and necessary for his mobile advertising business, he simply did not satisfy the strict substantiation requirements of section 274(d) for claiming car and truck expenses… Petitioner had no backup receipts and no beginning and ending mileage for the automobile he allegedly used.
Section 274(d) requires taxpayers to document travel expenses “by adequate records or sufficient evidence”
-the amount of expense,
-the time and place of the travel, and
-the business purpose of the trip.
For travel, that means receipts where possible (e.g., hotels), and contemporaneous calendars or logs documenting mileage. Without that, your work ethic and business model doesn’t even come into play.
Cite: Abelitis, T.C. Summ. Op. 2014-44.
Roger McEowen, IRS Says Agents Acting Under Power of Attorney Subject to FBAR Reporting. “The agent (along with the principal) is subject to the FBAR filing requirements if the POA gives the agent signature authority over a foreign account that exceeds the dollar threshold.”
TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 364. Big day tomorrow.
TaxGrrrl, UPDATED: Timeline Of IRS Tax Exempt Organization Scandal. It started with a planted question to try to blunt the impact of the impending TIGTA report that pointed out the targeting.
Kay Bell, Lois Lerner held in contempt of Congress, ramping up next phase of midterm election year political posturing. Yes, posturing is occurring — that’s what politicians do. But Sam Ervin’s posturing — and he did his share — didn’t make Watergate less a scandal.
Cara Griffith, Transparency Versus Disclosure of Taxpayer Information (Tax Analysts Blog) “…the disclosure of documents that contain taxpayer information, whether required by state law or the result of litigation, does not encourage transparency in tax administration.” I agree; unfortunately, the IRS hides behind dubious assertions of confidentiality to cover up its own questionable behavior.
Jason Dinesen, Hold the Phone on the IRS E-file Outrage Machine. No, don’t. It’s still outrageous.
Peter Reilly, Nonrecognition On Divorce Transfers Hurts Receiving Spouse . It did in this case, when the recipient spouse had to pay tax. Taxpayers receiving property in divorce receive the other spouse’s basis, and the other spouse doesn’t have a taxable sale. But it’s still good policy. Property settlements are contentious enough without hitting somebody giving up property with income tax on that dubious privilege. Also, if the IRS got a cut, there would be less marital property to split in the first place.
Alan Cole, Failing by its Own Standard: What DC’s Insurance Tax Tells Us About its Obamacare Exchange (Tax Policy Blog)
Tax Justice Blog, What’s the Matter with Kansas (and Missouri, and …). “An anti-tax, Republican super majority in the Missouri Legislature claimed victory yesterday in a year-long battle with Gov. Jay Nixon over taxes by voting to override Nixon’s veto of a $620 million income tax cut.”
Do tell. California Legislative Analyst’s Office Raises Concerns with Film Tax Credits (Lyman Stone, Tax Policy Blog).
Renu Zaretsky rounds up tax headlines for TaxVox with Contempt, Audits, Health Care, and Highways.
Janet Novack, Mansion Tax Kills Some Million Dollar Home Sales, Study Concludes. Taxes always matter.
Jack Townsend, Another Foreign Account Sentencing.
Quotable:
The practice of regularly renewing the extenders package is unfortunate and should be stopped. It distorts the budget process, encourages legislative rent seeking, and invites highly particularistic legislative provisions that are better characterized as windfalls and wasteful government spending rather than well-targeted tax incentives.
Victor Fleischer, Tax Legislation in the Contemporary U.S. Congress (Via the Taxprof)
News from the Profession: Grant Thornton Tries to Motivate With the Human Centipede, or Something (Going Concern)
