Richard Steven Harris, T. C. Memo. 2025-113, filed 11/4/25, claims he was the proprietor of the business that employed him, so his Sched C fails because his employer provided compensation for some of the expenses he claimed, Section 274 substantiation knocks out others, so he can’t show the expenses were “necessary.”

Of interest, he claims $74K of the $534K his employer was allowed per Section 179D Energy Efficient Commercial Building Deductions as “designer.” He was the sales manager on the jobs that set up the deduction.

Judge Christian N. (“Speedy”) Weiler finds the 179D deduction lacks evidentiary support. Harris doesn’t show anything but uncorroborated testimony that he analyzed the original sequence of operations to determine how the existing systems were intended to operate, inspected the existing systems to determine how they were actually operating in comparison to the original sequence of operations (i.e., to identify any failures or ad hoc changes made to the original sequence of operations), and modified or changed the sequence of operations as necessary to better operate the systems.

Note he did have forms from his employer’s tax consultant showing him as designer and allocating him a part of the deduction. But Harris, pro se, never called the consultant as witness, nor did he attempt to get the forms in as business records. Taishoff says he might not have succeeded if he did, but worth a try.

Tax Court may be the “small court” but you still have to try your case.