- 8 -
that deductible expenditures were made, it "should make as close
an approximation as it can, bearing heavily if it chooses upon
the taxpayer whose inexactitude is of his own making."
Here, the parties do not dispute that petitioner failed to
produce any documents to support his claimed gambling losses for
1990. Rather, petitioner testified that, at one time, he had
records, but either his ex-wife or her new husband had thrown
them away. Thus, petitioner tries to fit within the framework of
the rule of Cohan by laying the blame at the feet of his ex-wife.
However, petitioner failed to call his ex-wife to testify. Thus,
the Court did not have the opportunity to corroborate petition-
er's story.
Unless the court has some proof that the taxpayer is
entitled to some deduction, the taxpayer should not be granted
relief. Williams v. United States, 245 F.2d 559, 560 (5th Cir.
1957). Additionally, where "'there are no reliable figures from
which to calculate or extrapolate a reasonable estimate of * * *
[a taxpayer's] losses'", no such adjustment is warranted. Metas
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-36 (quoting Plisco v. United
States, 306 F.2d 784, 787 (D.C. Cir. 1962)). Here, the only
evidence presented to support petitioner's losses reported on his
1990 Federal income tax return was petitioner's own testimony.
Thus, although it logically follows that petitioner must have
sustained some losses considering his substantial gambling
activity, the complete absence of any documentation or other
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011