John and Yoon Ja Biazar - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          7491(a).  Accordingly, we conclude that pursuant to section                 
          7491(a) the burden of proof does not shift to respondent.                   
          II. Remaining Schedule C Expenses                                           
               Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and                      
          petitioners have the burden of showing that they are entitled to            
          any deduction claimed.  See Rule 142(a); New Colonial Ice Co. v.            
          Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).  Petitioners presented no              
          evidence regarding the minimart’s expenses for 1995, 1996, 1997,            
          or 1998 that were not stipulated or conceded by respondent.                 
          Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determination regarding                
          these amounts.                                                              
          III. Gross Receipts                                                         
               Petitioners argue that the amounts of gross receipts listed            
          on their 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 returns overstated their                
          actual gross receipts because the amounts listed erroneously                
          included loans2 made to John Biazar (petitioner) that he                    
          deposited into the minimart’s bank accounts.                                
               Petitioner testified that he received the alleged loans as             
          checks and repaid the alleged loans via check.  Other witnesses             
          testified that they provided petitioner cash, and he provided               
          them cash, not checks.                                                      

               2  We use the term “loan” for convenience only.  We make no            
          finding that the amounts third parties provided petitioner were             
          in fact loans.  We note that one witness testified that no                  
          interest was charged on the alleged loans, and no loan agreements           
          were ever executed.                                                         





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

Last modified: May 25, 2011