- 6 -
maintained a separate bank account for the real estate activity;
however, most of the checks entered into evidence that were drawn
on the account were made payable to "cash". Petitioner described
the nature of his real estate activity for years prior to 1991
but provided no information concerning what he was doing in 1991.
OPINION
Respondent disallowed the entire moving expense deduction
based upon lack of substantiation. Respondent disallowed all of
the deductions claimed on the Schedule C upon the ground that
petitioner's real estate activity did not constitute a trade or
business within the meaning of section 162(a). Petitioners claim
that they have satisfied all of the provisions of section 217,
and with the exception of certain PSI records, rely exclusively
on petitioner's testimony to support the amount of the deduction
claimed. Petitioner also claims that he was engaged in some real
estate business during 1991 and relies primarily upon his history
of such activity in the years 1985 through 1988.
Respondent's determinations, having been made in a notice of
deficiency, are presumed correct, and petitioners bear the burden
of proving such determinations to be erroneous. Rule 142(a);
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Furthermore,
deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer
bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to any deduction
claimed. Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S.
79, 84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011