Kent Maerki and Kathleen Turner - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          produced seven canceled checks to Lorraine S. Whipps, each in the           
          amount of $50.  The dates of these checks indicated that they               
          were issued approximately every 2 weeks from September 14 to                
          December 14, 1990.  The records of the Registry record these                
          checks as "Contract Wages", and petitioner testified that they              
          were paid for miscellaneous labor for the business.  We hold that           
          petitioners have established that these items were deductible               
          expenses.                                                                   
               With respect to the "other" expenses claimed in the amount             
          of $20,730, petitioners now apparently claim that $16,755 of this           
          amount actually represents trust preparation fees, which should             
          have been claimed on the Schedule C for ENT rather than the                 
          Schedule C for the Registry.  Petitioner testified that he                  
          operated ENT and that ENT did "business consulting, living trust,           
          and also was involved in starting a couple of other businesses; a           
          legal preparation services business and some others."  The checks           
          making up the $16,755 were all drawn on ENT's account.                      
          Petitioner gave no explanation of how checks drawn on ENT's                 
          account were deducted as expenses of the Registry, nor is it                
          clear whether or not these amounts were already deducted on ENT's           
          Schedule C.  There was no other documentation (such as invoices             
          or contracts) presented showing the nature and purpose of these             
          payments.  Petitioners again simply failed to prove entitlement             
          to the deductions claimed.                                                  
               Petitioners appear to argue that the remainder of the                  




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

Last modified: May 25, 2011