- 17 -
We find that petitioner has not substantiated her
entitlement to her claimed repair and maintenance deduction. The
service contract presented by petitioner is between Kansas City
Digital Systems and Knappco, not between Kansas City Digital
Systems and petitioner or Orad. Furthermore, as discussed above,
petitioner did not establish that the check payable to Lafayette
Bank was used to purchase a cashier's check. See discussion
supra p. 16. Since petitioner has failed to substantiate that
she is entitled to any deduction for repairs and maintenance, we
sustain respondent's determination.
E. Supply Expenses
Petitioner claimed a $4,586 deduction for supplies on her
1985 Federal income tax return. Respondent determined that
$4,278 of such amount was not allowable. Subsequently,
respondent allowed an additional deduction of $1,866. Thus,
respondent has allowed $2,174 of the $4,586 claimed by
petitioner. Petitioner asserts that the remaining $2,412 is
allowable.
To substantiate her entitlement to $2,412 of disallowed
deductions, petitioner presented a schedule and a number of
canceled checks. Petitioner presented $1,624 of checks to All
American Appliance, but, at trial, she could not provide any
explanation for the nature of such expenditures. Furthermore,
petitioner presented a receipt for $190 for a "red couch", which
she claimed was for her truck. Petitioner also presented a $598
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011