- 5 - telephonic conference with the parties concerning that motion, the Court allowed the parties a reasonable period of time until January 26, 1996, within which to finalize and file their opening briefs. Respondent's opening brief was timely filed. No opening brief was filed by petitioner. Accordingly, the Court ordered that (1) respondent's opening brief was to be served on peti- tioner, (2) respondent was not required to file an answering brief, and (3) petitioner was not allowed to file either an opening brief or an answering brief. Discussion We note at the outset that petitioner bears the burden of proving that the determinations in the notice of deficiency are erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). We also note that deductions are strictly a matter of legislative grace, and a taxpayer must meet the specific statu- tory requirements for any deduction claimed. New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934). The scant record in this case consists of petitioner's testimony. Based on that record, we sustain respondent's income determinations. We further find on the record before us that petitioner has failed to show that he is entitled to any deduc- tions or exemptions in excess of those allowed by respondent3 or 3 Petitioner's general, conclusory, and/or vague testimony regarding the deductions to which he claims he is entitled for (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011