Albert William Dehr, III and Yoeng Yoep Dehr - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         

               Respondent determined a deficiency of $9,347 in petitioners'           
          1994 Federal income tax.                                                    
               After a concession by respondent, the issues remaining for             
          decision are whether petitioners are entitled to claim car and              
          truck transportation expenses and telephone expenses as business            
          expenses on Schedule C.2                                                    
               Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.               
          Petitioners resided in Yuba City, California, at the time they              
          filed their petition.                                                       
                                     Background                                       
               During the taxable year Albert William Dehr III (petitioner)           
          was self-employed as a "financial litigation consultant", engaged           
          in "RICO investigations, [and] financial investigations in major            
          civil litigations" for attorneys in San Francisco, Denver,                  
          Washington, and Florida.  Petitioner's consulting activities                
          included reviewing financial records, conducting interviews,                
          assisting attorneys with depositions, locating individuals, and             
          drafting reports.                                                           
               Petitioner was also a member of a real estate partnership,             
          Bakos & Dehr Realty (Bakos & Dehr).  Mr. Bakos was "an attorney             


               2The parties agree that petitioners' gross receipts for the            
          year 1994 are $24,838 as reported on Schedule C of the return.              
          Respondent determined that petitioners are not entitled to claim            
          the earned income credit.  This is a computational adjustment               
          that will be resolved by our decision on the other issues in this           
          case.                                                                       




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011