3 ms·
Found it: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Car-and-Truck-Expense-Deduction-Reminders http://www.irs.gov/uac/Car-and-Truck-Expense-Deduction-Remin... "The standard mileag
by justinsb 12y ago
Found it: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Car-and-Truck-Expense-Deduction-Reminders http://www.irs.gov/uac/Car-and-Truck-Expense-Deduction-Remin...
"The standard mileage rate cannot be used if the taxpayer:
Uses the car for hire (such as a taxi)."
So you can deduct your actual (itemized) expenses, pro-rated for business use, but you can't take the "standard deduction" of $0.55.
I am not an accountant or anyone qualified to give any advice, but this seems pretty clear!
- dnautics 12y agoHm. Good to know. In any case, I've been keeping good records of both.
- justinsb 12y agoSorry! I also think it's a bad rule, because as a society we should be rewarding you for driving a fuel-efficient car, rather than effectively giving higher tax breaks per mile to those that drive less efficient cars.
- dnautics 12y agoI roll with the punches. Thanks for the info.
- muzz 12y agoGP is being rewarded by saving on fuel-- his cost is only 30c/mile compared to the standard of 55c/mile. He's trying to deduct both his actual costs and the standard cost, which is obviously double-deducting.
- Dylan16807 12y ago> He's trying to deduct both his actual costs and the standard cost, which is obviously double-deducting. What? How do you get double deducting out of this? I only see a desire to deduct 55c/mile. If the actual costs are only 30c, that's not double deducting, that's just having a deduction that's larger than raw costs. Deductions that are larger than raw costs exist all over the place. The concept isn't strange even if this particular rule disallows it. > GP is being rewarded by saving on fuel-- his cost is only 30c/mile compared to the standard of 55c/mile. Except he paid higher up front for that fuel saving. And he pays higher taxes without that deduction.