## Facts

- Brian F. Nicely was employed as a welder by Mendon Pipeline, Inc. during 2002.
- Mendon Pipeline’s policy was to pay lodging directly when an employee lived too far from the job site to make a safe daily round trip; the company did not reimburse other expenses such as meals or automobile use.
- On his 2002 federal income tax return, Nicely claimed Schedule A miscellaneous itemized deductions for “Job Expenses and Most Other Miscellaneous Deductions,” including unreimbursed employee expenses, a tax preparation fee, and $600 for “clothes, boots, and gloves.”
- In the Tax Court case, Nicely sought deductions (before application of the I.R.C. § 67(a) 2% floor) including automobile expenses calculated using the standard mileage rate, meal expenses (subject to the 50% limit), and the $600 claimed for work clothes/boots/gloves.
- Nicely’s automobile expense claim was based on a business-mileage figure he later conceded was overstated by roughly 3,000 miles.
- Nicely did not produce contemporaneous logs or other detailed records showing the amount, time, place, and business purpose for the automobile and meal expenses.
- The clothing claim included work boots (identified as Rocky Wolverine boots) and other items; at trial, Nicely acknowledged he was wearing the same boots in the courtroom.
- The Commissioner issued a notice of deficiency for 2002 disallowing the disputed deductions, and Nicely petitioned the Tax Court for redetermination.

## Issues

1. Whether Nicely was entitled to deduct unreimbursed employee automobile expenses for 2002, given the substantiation rules for listed property.
2. Whether Nicely was entitled to deduct meal expenses as business travel expenses for 2002, given the strict substantiation requirements for travel meals.
3. Whether amounts spent on work clothes, boots, and gloves were deductible business expenses or nondeductible personal expenses.

## Decision

- The Tax Court sustained the Commissioner’s disallowance of Nicely’s claimed unreimbursed employee automobile expense deduction because he did not meet the substantiation requirements of I.R.C. § 274(d).
- The Tax Court sustained the disallowance of Nicely’s claimed meal expense deduction because he did not provide the documentation required by I.R.C. § 274(d) for travel meals.
- The Tax Court sustained the disallowance of the claimed work clothing/boots/gloves deduction because Nicely did not show the items were not suitable for general wear, and his own testimony (including wearing the boots in court) supported treatment as personal expenses.

## Legal Principles

- Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden to prove entitlement to a deduction and to substantiate the amount.
- I.R.C. § 162(a) permits deductions for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in carrying on a trade or business, including qualifying travel expenses while away from home.
- I.R.C. § 274(d) imposes strict substantiation for travel, meals, and listed property (including passenger automobiles), requiring adequate records or other sufficient evidence showing the amount, time, place, and business purpose of each expense.
- When § 274(d) applies, the court cannot allow a deduction based on approximation; the Cohan rule cannot replace the required substantiation.
- Clothing costs are deductible only if the clothing is required as a condition of employment and is not suitable for general wear; otherwise the expense is personal and nondeductible under I.R.C. § 262.
- An employer’s refusal to reimburse an expense does not by itself establish that the expense is deductible; the taxpayer must still satisfy all statutory requirements, including substantiation.

## Conclusion

In *Nicely v. Commissioner*, the Tax Court ruled for the Commissioner and denied Nicely’s claimed unreimbursed employee deductions for automobile and meal expenses because he lacked the detailed documentation required by I.R.C. § 274(d), and it denied the work clothing and boot deduction because the items were suitable for general wear and treated as personal expenses, as shown in part by Nicely’s admission that he wore the same boots outside of work.


Nicely v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2006-172 (2006)