Valentina Perrah v. Commissioner - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                         
          5T(c)(2)(i) through (iii), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed.              
          Reg. 46017 (Nov. 6, 1985).                                                  
               Petitioner argues that her claimed deductions have been                
          substantiated.  Yet, the only evidence that petitioner has                  
          submitted to this Court is her own self-serving testimony                   
          regarding the deductions.  We do not have to accept such                    
          testimony without corroborating evidence.  Niedringhaus v.                  
          Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202 (1992).  Further, aside from                      
          petitioner’s argument that Mr. Rangel’s allowance of some                   
          deductions is proof that her deductions were substantiated in               
          full, petitioner has not presented any corroborating evidence.              
               As such, petitioner does not meet the substantiation                   
          requirements of section 162 or section 274(d).  Accordingly, we             
          hold that petitioner did not substantiate her disallowed Schedule           
          C deductions and has, therefore, not shown respondent’s                     
          determination to be in error.                                               
          II.  Accuracy-Related Penalty of Section 6662(a)                            
               Section 6662 provides for an accuracy-related penalty equal            
          to 20 percent of the underpayment if such underpayment was due to           
          taxpayer’s negligence or substantial understatement of income               
          tax.  Sec. 6662(a) and (b)(1).  For the purposes of this section,           
          a taxpayer is negligent when he or she fails “to do what a                  
          reasonable and ordinarily prudent person would do under the                 
          circumstances.”  Korshin v. Commissioner, 91 F.3d 670, 672 (4th             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011