## Facts

- Henry A. Sherry, an Ohio attorney, and Barbara E. Sherry filed joint federal income tax returns for 1970 and 1971.
- Sherry bought a private airplane in 1967 for $10,300 and used it for both business and personal purposes.
- For 1970, the Sherrys claimed airplane-related deductions including depreciation ($858.37) and operating expenses ($812.69), with total airplane operating expenses of $1,659.31.
- In 1970, Sherry flew the airplane 40 hours and 55 minutes; 25 hours and 25 minutes were for two trips from Ohio to Ft. Myers/Sanibel Island, Florida.
- On the first Florida trip (Jan. 13–21, 1970), Sherry and his wife vacationed at a resort area; Sherry also claimed he investigated the possibility of establishing a bank there, while his wife vacationed.
- On the second Florida trip, Sherry testified he met some prospective investors but spent most of the time vacationing; his wife’s activities were recreational.
- Sherry kept no contemporaneous records allocating flight time between business and personal use, and provided limited detail about claimed business contacts.
- The Sherrys treated roughly two-thirds of airplane use as business on the 1970 return; the Commissioner allowed only 6.45% as business use.
- In 1971, Sherry paid labor costs to install fixtures in his law office and deducted the labor as current business expenses; the Commissioner treated the costs as capital expenditures.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sherrys proved entitlement to airplane depreciation and operating expense deductions for 1970 beyond the Commissioner’s allowance, including allocation of mixed-purpose Florida trips and claimed “proficiency” flights.
2. Whether 1971 labor costs to install law-office fixtures were currently deductible under I.R.C. § 162 or required capitalization as improvements.

## Decision

- The Tax Court largely sustained the Commissioner’s limitation on 1970 airplane deductions, finding the evidence did not support Sherry’s claimed business allocation for the Florida trips or his broad treatment of proficiency flights as business expenses.
- The Tax Court held the 1971 labor costs for installing office fixtures were capital expenditures and not currently deductible under § 162.
- Decision was entered sustaining the deficiencies except for any minor adjustments reflected in the court’s computations.

## Legal Principles

- Deductions are a matter of legislative grace; the taxpayer bears the burden to substantiate entitlement and the amount.
- For mixed personal and business travel or mixed-use property, only the portion shown to be business-related is deductible; where a trip is primarily personal, deductions are limited to clearly separable business components.
- General testimony without reliable records (e.g., logs, contemporaneous documentation, specific corroboration) is insufficient to support a generous business-use allocation.
- Expenses claimed as necessary to maintain capability (such as flying proficiency) are deductible only to the extent the taxpayer proves a direct and primary connection to the business use claimed.
- Amounts paid to install fixtures and make lasting improvements to business premises are capital expenditures; the capital nature is not changed by labeling the outlay as “labor” rather than materials.

## Conclusion

The Tax Court limited deductions for a privately owned airplane used for both personal and alleged business purposes where the taxpayer failed to substantiate a predominantly business purpose for resort-area travel and related flight time, and it required capitalization of labor costs incurred to install office fixtures because the expenditures constituted improvements to property rather than current operating expenses.


Sherry v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1975-337 (1975)