- 6 - to specific categories of expenses was vague and uninformative. Moreover, petitioner made no effort to retrieve and produce in this proceeding the records that he claims were turned over to his accountant. Simply put, petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence from which this Court could conclude that any farming expenses were incurred and paid. In effect, petitioner has done nothing more than offer his Federal income tax returns as proof for the deductions here in dispute. Such evidence is hardly sufficient to satisfy his burden of proof. See Roberts v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 834, 837 (1974). Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to Schedule F expense deductions in excess of those allowed by respondent. Because of our holding, we need not address whether the expenses claimed were ordinary and necessary within the meaning of section 162. The net operating loss carryovers that were claimed by petitioners and disallowed by respondent for each year in issue result from the losses petitioners claim to have incurred in the farming activity. With respect to the year 1991, petitioners conceded on their 1992 return that the 1991 net operating loss deduction was miscalculated and that they were not entitled to a net operating loss carryover in 1991. Our holding with respect to deductions claimed on the Schedules F results in the elimination of the net operating loss carryovers claimed in 1992 and 1993 that resulted from the claimed losses incurred fromPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011