While Rev. Proc. 2003-80, sec. 1, authorizes the per diem method to substantiate those traveling expenses, the per diem method is available only to employees whose employers pay a per diem allowance in lieu of reimbursing the actual expenses an employee pays while traveling away from home. Moreover, IRS Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses, explains that in the case of an employee "There is no optional standard lodging amount similar to the standard meal allowance. Your allowable lodging expense deduction is your actual cost."

Petitioner's 2009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 108">*121 claimed travel expenses do not come within Rev. Proc. 2003-80, sec. 4.01, 2003-2 C.B. at 1039, because he was an employee who did not receive a per diem allowance from his employer. Therefore, he is not entitled to his deduction for travel expenses based on per diem rates.

Petitioner provided no receipts to substantiate his payment of certain expenses; e.g., laundry, heat, or the $ 100 for "RV Rent" reported on January 28, March 30, and May 24, 2004. He also reported in his logbook and claimed on his Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, that he had paid certain travel expenses in Las Vegas, but he conceded at trial that he was actually in Topeka; e.g., he reported rent of $ 49.39 on December 4, 2004, and rent of $ 29.78 and laundry expense of $ 15 on December 5, 2004. Like petitioner's vehicle expenses, the actual costs of his travel expenses are not sufficiently substantiated. See sec. 1.274-5T(b)(2), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014, 46015 (Nov. 6, 1985). Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to a deduction for travel expenses based on actual costs.

1. $ 120 Deduction 2009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 108">*122 for Licenses

Petitioner testified that his deduction for licenses related to a Washington State electrician's license for which he had reciprocity with Alaska. But he did not submit a copy of his license. In addition, as reported in petitioner's logbook and deducted on his Form 1040, his expenditures for licenses actually include amounts paid for "Auto" licenses (e.g., "tags") of:

Petitioner has provided no receipts or canceled checks substantiating his payment of those amounts. See sec. 6001. In addition, the amounts were paid in relation to listed property and therefore are subject to the strict substantiation requirements of section 274(d) and the regulations thereunder. As discussed supra, he has not sufficiently substantiated his vehicle expenses in accordance with those provisions. Also, the amounts paid on July 24 and September 3, 2004, bear the notation "MC", which the Court infers to mean in relation to motorcycle tags. He testified that his motorcycles were used only in Topeka for personal purposes. Consequently, those personal expenditures are also not deductible under section 262(a). In sum, petitioner 2009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 108">*123 is not entitled to a $ 120 deduction for licenses.

2. $ 130 Deduction for "OFFICE"

As reported in petitioner's logbook and deducted on his Form 1040, his expenditures for "OFFICE" include:

Petitioner submitted copies of an Office Depot receipt dated December 26, 2004, substantiating a $ 15.49 purchase of office items. He also submitted copies of OfficeMax and Kinko's receipts that are illegible because of the poor copy quality. He has not proven that he paid the remaining $ 114.51 for office items. See sec. 6001. Accordingly, the Court finds that petitioner is entitled to a deduction of $ 15.49 for office items. See Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540">39 F.2d at 544 (in estimating a taxpayer's deductions, the Court bears heavily against the taxpayer whose inexactitude is of his or her own making).

3. $ 241 Deduction for "Postage"

As reported in petitioner's logbook and deducted on his Form 1040, his expenditures for postage include:

Although 2009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 108">*124 deductions for the following were not claimed on petitioner's Form 1040, he has submitted a post office receipt for a "mailer" and postage of $ 7.28 paid on February 3, 2004, a receipt for "postage book" of $ 7.40 paid on December 30, 2004, a receipt for postage stamps of $ 7.40 paid on June 22, 2004, and a receipt for postage stamps (amount illegible) paid on April 22, 2004. He has not submitted any other receipts to substantiate his expenditures for postage.

Petitioner has not proven that he paid the postage expenses set forth in the table except as noted supra. And he offered no testimony explaining how his postage expenses related to either his trade as an electrician or to job search expenses. The record supports an inference that his expenditures for postage were personal expenses and as such are not deductible. See sec. 262(a). Indeed, he testified that he could sign his local union's books (in Topeka) either in person or by sending something in by certified or registered mail, but there is no evidence that he used the mail option, other than his uncorroborated self-serving statements. See Urban Redev. Corp. v. Commissioner, 294 F.2d 328">294 F.2d 328, 294 F.2d 328">332 (4th Cir. 1961), affg. 34 T.C. 845">34 T.C. 845 (1960); 2009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 108">*125 Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74">87 T.C. 74, 87 T.C. 74">77 (1986). Petitioner testified that as a "traveler", he had to sign nonlocal unions' books in person every Wednesday to keep his name active and that "you have to be present for * * * [daily calls at a nonlocal union] in order to take the" job.

Because petitioner has failed to prove that his postage expenditures were either paid or related to his trade as an electrician or to job search expenses, he is not entitled to the deduction. See secs. 162(a), 262(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79">503 U.S. 79, 503 U.S. 79">84 (1992) (stating that deductions are strictly a matter of legislative grace, and taxpayers bear the burden of proving that they are entitled to any claimed deduction). Respondent's determination is sustained.

4. $ 2,385 Deduction for "PHONE"

As reported in petitioner's logbook and deducted on his Form 1040, his expenditures for "PHONE" include:

Petitioner 2009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 108">*126 provided no canceled checks or statements of "Monthly Charges" to substantiate his payment of his phone expenses in 2004 except as noted supra. He, however, provided a statement of monthly charges dated December 26, 2003, bearing the name of his then girlfriend. He testified that they added another cell phone to her account, and he paid the bill.

Petitioner's deduction for "PHONE" relates to listed property that must be strictly substantiated in accordance with section 274(d) and the regulations thereunder. See secs. 274(d), 280F(d)(4)(A)(v); sec. 1.274-5T(b)(6), Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra. Petitioner has provided no evidence establishing the amount of his expenditures, the amount of his business and total use, the date of the expenditure or use, or the business purpose of his use. See sec. 1.274-5T(b)(6), Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra. To the extent that his deduction for phone expenses consisted of charges relating to his then girlfriend's cell phone use, the deduction is not allowable. See secs. 162(a), 262(a), 274(d); Trujillo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-481 (gifts to certain persons are nondeductible personal expenses). Respondent's determination is sustained.

Deductions for meals and entertainment expenses are generally subject to the strict substantiation rules of section 274(d) and the regulations thereunder. But Rev. Proc. 2003-80, sec. 4.03, 2003-2 C.B. at 1040, provides that employees who pay meals expenses may use an amount computed at the Federal meals and incidental ^{72009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 108">*128} expenses (M&IE) rate for the locality of travel for each calendar day that the employee is away from home in lieu of using actual expenses to compute an allowable amount as a deduction. Rev. Proc. 2003-80, sec. 4.03, also explains that the "amount will be deemed substantiated for purposes of paragraphs (b)(2) and (c) of section 1.274-5, provided the employee * * * substantiates the elements of time, place, and business purpose of the travel for that day". [Emphasis added].

Petitioner's deduction for meals expenses consisted of amounts he expended for groceries and so-called per diem rates. As reported in petitioner's logbook, his "per diem rates" ranged anywhere from $ 15 to $ 30, $ 25, $ 45, $ 55, $ 60, $ 69.82, ⁸ and $ 115.

As reflected in petitioner's logbook and deducted on his Form 1040, his entertainment expenses were based on his actual costs. As reported in his logbook, some of his entertainment expenses consist of amounts for "movies" of $ 75 on October 16, 2004. In addition, he submitted a Sam's Club receipt for the purchase of a DVD for $ 19.63 on August 26, 2004. He also submitted a receipt of $ 11.83 for books purchased at "Barnes & Noble" with titles such as "Bath Floorpl", "Guide to Freshw", "Gardens: Every", "Book of Knots", and "Flour, Eggs" (as shown on the receipt), for which he reported the expenditure as entertainment in his logbook and deducted on his Form 1040.

Because 2009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 108">*129 petitioner's deduction for meals expenses were not based on the Federal M&IE rates of the various localities, he does not come within the provisions of Rev. Proc. 2003-80, sec. 4.03. In addition, he also has not satisfied the requirement of substantiating the business purpose of his travel since he claimed deductions for meals expenses on December 4 and 5, 2004-dates for which he admitted that he was in Topeka for personal reasons and not in Las Vegas for business reasons. See id. Similarly, because he has not substantiated the business purpose of his travel to allow a deduction for meals expenses based on Federal M&IE rates, he also has not substantiated the business purpose of his travel to allow a deduction for meals expenses based on actual costs. See sec. 1.274-5T(b)(2), (4), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014, 46015 (Nov. 6, 1985). Moreover, it would strain credulity to believe that petitioner paid the following meals expenses in his trade as an electrician or as job search expenses: (1) White Zinfandel and "Ridley" Sauvignon Blanc; (2) "Smirnoff" beer; (3) "Miller" beer; (4) "BEER"; (5) "COCKTAILS" and "Captain Morgans"; (6) "Monistat", "Kotex Tampons", and "Midol"; 2009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 108">*130 (7) razors, deodorant, toothpaste, "Chapstick", shampoo, "Robitussin", broom, "Downy", "ERA", magazines, or candles; (8) "Brandy" and "Cuervo" mix; and (9) "Malibu Rum" and "Jose Cuervo". He also admitted that $ 206 of his meals expenses related to charges for "Sierra Spring" water that was billed to his then girlfriend and delivered to her residence.

Petitioner also has not substantiated his deduction for entertainment expenses as required by section 274(d) and the regulations thereunder. Specifically, he has not substantiated certain amounts of his expenditures, e.g., with a receipt, the place of the expenditures such as the name, address, or location; and the business purpose of the entertainment; i.e., the business reason for the entertainment, the nature of the business benefit derived or expected to be derived as a result of the entertainment, or the nature of any business discussion or activity. See sec. 1.274-5T(b)(3) and (4), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46015, 46016 (Nov. 6, 1985). Indeed, the evidence supports an inference that his expenditures for entertainment related to personal expenses and were not paid in his trade as an electrician or as job search expenses; 2009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 108">*131 e.g., the "Barnes & Noble" purchase for books and Sam's Club purchase for the DVD.

In sum, the Court holds that petitioner is not entitled to his deduction for meals and entertainment expenses. Respondent's determination is sustained.

Petitioner testified that his deduction for safety clothing consisted of amounts expended for fire-retardant work clothing and steel-toed boots. Petitioner submitted the following receipts to substantiate his expenditures: (1) "Work World" of $ 48.24; (2) "Workboot Warehouse" of $ 106.96; (3) "American Worker" of $ 103.40; and (4) "Las Vegas Country Store" of $ 107.46.

Clothing is a deductible expense only if it is required for the taxpayer's employment, is unsuitable for general or personal wear, and is not so worn. See Hynes v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1266">74 T.C. 1266, 74 T.C. 1266">1290 (1980); Yeomans v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 757">30 T.C. 757, 30 T.C. 757">767 (1958).

The Court accepts petitioner's testimony that his fire-retardant work clothing and steel-toed boots were not suitable for general or personal wear. But the Las Vegas Country Store receipt indicates that the amount was expended for three shirts and a pair of jeans. This expenditure was for clothing 2009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 108">*132 that is suitable for general and personal wear, and petitioner has not proven otherwise. Therefore, the Court finds that petitioner is entitled to a deduction of $ 258.64 for safety clothing.

Petitioner testified that he paid his local union dues yearly at his local union office. He also testified that he paid union dues based either on a percentage or a set figure to the nonlocal unions when he worked as a traveler.

Petitioner provided receipts or statements to substantiate his payment of local union dues of $ 741.09 and nonlocal union dues for "YEAR-TO-Date" of $ 531.51.

According to the receipt, petitioner paid $ 294.60 of local union dues on "12n052003". Therefore, he is not entitled to deduct that amount in 2004. See sec. 461(a); sec. 1.461-1(a)(1) and (2), Income Tax Regs. In short, the Court finds that petitioner is entitled to a deduction of $ 978 ($ 741.09 + $ 531.51 -$ 294.60) for union dues. See sec. 162(a); secs. 1.162-15(c), 1.162-20(c)(3), Income Tax Regs.

Petitioner submitted a receipt from "TOOL SERVICE" of $ 117.94 for the repair of a saw that he uses in his trade. He also submitted a "Sears" 2009 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 108">*133 receipt of $ 32.24 for an extractor. Petitioner has not otherwise substantiated his expenditures for tools or repairs. ⁹ The Court therefore finds that petitioner is entitled to a deduction of $ 150.18.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.