Tax Court in Brief | Ayria v. Comm’r | Substantiation for Schedule C Deductions (lodging, vehicle, entertainment, gifts, dry cleaning, etc.))

Share this Article
Facebook Icon LinkedIn Icon Twitter Icon

Freeman Law is a tax, white-collar, and litigation boutique law firm. We offer unique and valued counsel, insight, and experience. Our firm is where clients turn when the stakes are high and the issues are complex.

The Tax Court in Brief – December 19th – December 23rd, 2022

Freeman Law’s “The Tax Court in Brief” covers every substantive Tax Court opinion, providing a weekly brief of its decisions in clear, concise prose.

For a link to our podcast covering the Tax Court in Brief, download here or check out other episodes of The Freeman Law Project.

Tax Litigation:  The Week of December 19th, 2022, through December 23rd, 2022

Ayria v Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2022-123 | December 19, 2022 | Lauber, J.| Dkt. No. 13745-20

Short Summary: This case involves the disallowance of taxpayer’s business expenses reported on Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business for not meeting substantiation requirements and the assessment of an accuracy-related penalty. In the 2017 tax return, Ayria reported wages income received as an employee of Honda. Additionally, he included in his tax return a Schedule C where he described his sole proprietorship as “consulting”, where he reported gross receipts and claimed several deductions. All the expenses reported were incurred in connection with his work as manager of Honda. The expenses incurred were vehicle expenses, meals, and entertainment, gifts, telephone and Internet Charges, and Dry Cleaning. The IRS disallowed all the deductions claimed under Schedule C. The Tax Court determined that expenses shall be “ordinary and necessary” business expenses to be deductible under Section 26 U.S.C. § 162. The tax Court disallowed all the deductions made by Ayria under Schedule C, for the following reasons: (1) Lodging expenses – Ayria incurred hotel expenses that were not essential to carry out his business, but merely a substitution of his daily commuting from his home to his job. (2) Vehicle expenses – Ayria did not maintain any odometer readings to keep track of his mileage nor records for his business travel related. (3) Entertainment expenses – Ayria did not provide any evidence to support that entertainment expenses were for business purposes not personal. (4) Gifts – Ayria could not identify in his bank statements any entries linked to business gifts, or additional tax requirements. (5) Telephone and Internet expenses – Ayria did not provide any substantiation, to determine which portion was used for business and which portion was used for his personal use. (6) Dry cleaning expenses – the Tax Court determined that purchasing and maintaining clothes are not deductible merely because those clothes are worn to the office. The Tax Court did not assess any penalty under Section 26 U.S.C. § 6662 to Ayria regarding all the expenses except for Lodging, as it determined that due to his background education, this error is not chargeable to the petitioner. However, regarding Lodging expenses, the tax Court decided not to assess him with the penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6662 as he genuinely believed that his lodging expenses were required to hold on to his job as a manager of Honda.

Key Issues:

Primary Holdings:

Key Points of Law:

Insights:  This case involves the disallowance of deductions made by the taxpayer regarding certain business expenses under Schedule C for not presenting enough support documentation to meet the higher substantiation requirements of 26 U.S.C. Section 274 and related Treasury Regulations. If a taxpayer fails to duly record and register the information and documentation that will allow him or her to substantiate a deduction made, this will imply that the higher substantiation requirements will not be met. It is advisable to record any expense made, considering the requirements set forth in 26 U.S.C. Section 274 to avoid the disallowance of taxpayer’s deductions by the IRS. For additional information on 26 U.S.C. Section 274(d) (substantiation requirements), please see Freeman Law blog:

Patitz, Moody v. Commissioner (September 27, 2022)

Valentine v. Commissioner Tax Court Brief (April 29th, 2022).

Elbasha v. Commissioner (January 12, 2022)