- 20 -
calculating their Federal income tax liability. We cannot assume
the testimony of absent witnesses would have been favorable to
petitioners. Rather, the normal inference is that it would have
been unfavorable. Pollack v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 92, 108
(1966), affd. 392 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1968); Wichita Terminal
Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162
F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).
Petitioner husband testified that he had a recordkeeping
system for his business expenses. Petitioner husband's system
was to pay a bill, assign it to a category, and log it into a
spreadsheet. At the end of the year, petitioner husband would
summarize the items by category, and then give the summary to his
accountant, who would calculate the tax due. Petitioner
husband's system duplicated expenses which resulted in double
deductions. Thus, petitioner husband, not the accountant, was
responsible for determining the amounts of the schedule C
expenses and whether an expenditure was deductible.
Petitioners have not met their burden of proving that they
provided the accountant the full details of petitioner's use of
her property. Thus, petitioners may not claim that they
reasonably and in good faith relied upon his advice in
determining their tax liability with respect to petitioner's
property. See sec. 1.6664-4(b)(2), Example (1), Income Tax Regs.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011