I'd be surprised if that were the case. It's a legitimate business expense. The rules may be different if you don't own your own car, because the deduction is supposed to encompass both fuel costs and wear and tear on your car, which gets tricky if your employer owns the vehicle (as it would be for most taxi and livery services), but... I think THEY get to take the deduction.

Found it: 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!

Hm. Good to know. In any case, I've been keeping good records of both.

Sorry!

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.

GP 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.

> 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.

I roll with the punches. Thanks for the info.