- 3 -
Robert D. Suckley (petitioner) testified that he supplied
over one-half of the support for Kathy, Mark, Dennis, and Tiffany
during 1992.
We begin by noting that, as a general rule, the
Commissioner's determinations are presumed correct, and that the
taxpayer bears the burden of proving that those determinations
are erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111,
115 (1933). Moreover, deductions are a matter of legislative
grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he is
entitled to any deduction claimed. Rule 142(a); New Colonial Ice
Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934). This includes the
burden of substantiation. Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87,
90 (1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976).
Section 151(c)(1) allows individuals an exemption for
dependents as defined in section 152. Correspondingly, section
152(a)(1) includes a grandchild of the taxpayer as a dependent
provided that the taxpayer supplied over one-half of the support
for such grandchild.
Section 6001 and the regulations promulgated thereunder
require taxpayers to maintain records sufficient to permit
verification of income and expenses. As a general rule, if the
evidence at trial demonstrates that the taxpayer has incurred an
expense, but the taxpayer is unable to adequately substantiate
the amount of the expense, the Court may estimate the amount of
such expense and allow any related deduction. Cohan v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011