- 2 -
Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's Federal
income taxes for the taxable years 1990 and 1991 in the
respective amounts of $4,946 and $6,665, and accuracy-related
penalties pursuant to section 6662(a) in the amounts of $989 and
$1,333, respectively. At the time of filing the petition,
petitioner resided in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The substance of the dispute focuses on the deductibility of
a large number of relatively small items. After concessions,2
the issues are: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to certain
claimed unreimbursed employee business expense deductions for the
years in issue; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to certain
claimed charitable contribution deductions for the years in
issue; and (3) whether petitioner is liable for penalties
pursuant to section 6662(a) for the years in issue. Each issue
is discussed separately.
We note at the outset that deductions are a matter of
legislative grace and petitioner bears the burden of proving his
entitlement to and the amount of deductions. Rule 142(a); Welch
v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). If the record provides
sufficient evidence to show that a taxpayer incurred a deductible
2 Respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled to
charitable contribution deductions, in excess of the amounts
allowed in the notice of deficiency, for the taxable years 1990
and 1991 in the amounts of $4,182 and $6,719, respectively.
Petitioner concedes that he is not entitled to deduct any portion
of a $55 expenditure ($38 of which was deducted) made for spa
services on August 13, 1990, as a charitable contribution.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011