6
raised valid concerns regarding the authenticity of the carbon
copies. Petitioner did not produce corroborating statements from
his bank or testimony from payees to support his position. Based
on the above discussion regarding petitioner's credibility and
lack of substantiation, we find that we have no basis upon which
to estimate an allowable deduction in excess of the amounts
allowed by respondent.
For similar reasons, we find that petitioners are not
entitled to deduct expenses for utilities in excess of the amount
allowed by respondent. Petitioner claimed a deduction for
utility expenses in the aggregate amount of $2,544, all of which
respondent disallowed in the notice of deficiency. At trial,
counsel informed this Court that respondent would accept
petitioner's substantiation of the utility expenses in the amount
of $731.51, leaving $1,812.49 in dispute. Petitioner produced
additional canceled checks and money order receipts totaling only
$502.64. The documents presented fail to establish that the
payments were credited to the utility and/or telephone accounts
of Express Tax Service, as opposed to petitioners' account for
their personal residence. Accordingly, we find for respondent on
this issue.
With respect to the deduction for the expense of a tax
software program, we again have no evidence, other than the self-
serving testimony of petitioner, to substantiate that such an
expense was incurred. Petitioner offered to present the manuals
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011