T.C. Summary Opinion 2007-167



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              ROBERT THOMAS WALTERS, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 22282-05S.         Filed September 24, 2007.



     Robert Thomas Walters, pro se.

     Catherine S. Tyson, for respondent.


     FOLEY, Judge:   This case was heard pursuant to the

provisions of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect when the petition was filed.   Pursuant to section 7463(b),

the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court,

and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other


     1
        Unless otherwise indicated, 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.
                               - 2 -

case.   The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled

to deductions for car and truck expenses relating to 2002.

                            Background

     Petitioner operated a home remodeling business, RTW

Contracting.   He frequently drove to numerous job sites in his

truck, which he used primarily for business purposes.   Petitioner

maintained job worksheets on which he recorded the date, job site

location, names of employees working at the site, work performed,

and total number of miles petitioner drove to and from the site.

     On his 2002 Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business,

petitioner deducted car and truck expenses of $10,878, based on

the 2002 standard mileage rate of 36.5 cents per mile for 29,803

business miles.   On August 25, 2005, respondent issued petitioner

a notice of deficiency denying, due to lack of substantiation,

petitioner’s deduction.

     On November 23, 2005, while residing in St. Louis, Missouri,

petitioner filed his petition with the Court.

                            Discussion

     Section 162 allows a deduction for all ordinary and

necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or

business.   Pursuant to section 274(d), however, certain business

expenses are subject to stricter substantiation requirements.

Section 274(d) provides that no deduction shall be allowed with

respect to any listed property defined in section 280F(d)(4),
                                 - 3 -

unless the taxpayer substantiates:       The amount of the expense,

the time and place of the use of the property, the business

purpose of the expense, and the business relationship to the

taxpayer of the property used.    A taxpayer may opt to use the

standard mileage rate to calculate his business expense mileage

deduction.    Sec. 1.274-5(j)(2), Income Tax Regs.     This method

does not, however, relieve the taxpayer of the requirement to

substantiate the business mileage and the business purpose of

each use.

a passenger automobile, which is

listed property pursuant to section 280F(d)(4)(A)(i) and (5)(A).

Petitioner contends that his job worksheets, listing a total of

2,683 miles, and his truck log, listing an additional 27,120

miles, properly account for all of his 2002 business mileage.

Respondent concedes that the job worksheets meet the requirements

of section 274(d), but contends that the additional mileage set

forth in petitioner’s truck log does not meet the requirements of

section 274(d).    Petitioner contends that the truck log

supplements the job worksheets.    The truck log, however, does not

provide any information relating to the places to which

petitioner drove or the business purpose for the trips.

Moreover, the truck log is not credible evidence.       When

questioned about miles he allegedly drove on Thanksgiving,

petitioner admitted that the entry was “probably a mistake”.         In
                                 - 4 -

short, petitioner has not met the substantiation requirements of

section 274(d).   Section 1.274-5T(a), Temporary Income Tax Regs.,

50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6, 1985), provides that a taxpayer shall

not be allowed a deduction based on approximation or the

taxpayer’s unsupported testimony.    Accordingly, we hold that

petitioner is entitled to a mileage deduction limited to the

miles set forth on the job worksheets.

     Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or

meritless.

     To reflect the foregoing,



                                              Decision will be entered

                                         under Rule 155.