- 15 -
Income Tax Regs.
Respondent contends that petitioners are not entitled to
the credit because Ruth Mayen provided housekeeping services.
According to petitioner's testimony, Ruth Mayen was primarily
hired to care for Gabriel and Yulanda, although she did provide
housekeeping services. We find that a part of Ruth Mayen's
housekeeping services included the care of Gabriel and Yulanda.
Unfortunately, petitioner presented very little
documentation and testimony as to the amounts paid Pacific Coast
Preschool, Van Ness Nursery, and Ruth Mayen.5 However, the Court
is satisfied that some amount was expended by petitioners for the
care of Gabriel, Yulanda, and Miranda. Based on the record and
using our best judgment under Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540
(2d Cir. 1930), the Court estimates that child care expenses paid
by petitioners to Pacific Coast Preschool and Van Ness Nursery
were $840 for 1989. Further, the Court estimates that the child
care expense paid by petitioners to Ruth Mayen was $2,000 for
1989. Thus, petitioners are allowed a child care credit based
upon these amounts.
Schedule C Activities
5 Petitioner did present cancelled checks payable to
Pacific Coast in the amount of $198 and Van Ness in the amount of
$196.50. In addition, petitioners made statements in their reply
brief as to the amount paid to Ruth Mayen for child care
services. However, statements in briefs do not constitute
evidence and will not be considered by the Court.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011