- 6 -
legislative grace, and petitioner bears the burden of proving
that he is entitled to any deduction claimed. New Colonial Ice
Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).
Petitioner attempted to satisfy his burden of proof in this
case through his own testimony and certain documentary evidence.
We found petitioner's testimony at times questionable, general,
vague, conclusory, and evasive. Under the circumstances present-
ed here, we are not required to, and we do not, rely on petition-
er's testimony to sustain his burden of establishing error in
respondent's determinations. See Lerch v. Commissioner, 877 F.2d
624, 631-632 (7th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Geiger
v. Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per
curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159; Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74,
77 (1986). As for the documentary evidence on which petitioner
relies, for the reasons discussed below, we find that those
documents do not support petitioner's contentions and/or are
unreliable.
Motor Home Expenses
Section 162(a) generally allows a deduction for ordinary and
necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in
carrying on a trade or business.3 To be entitled to a deduction
3 Sec. 212 allows a deduction for all ordinary and necessary
expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year for the produc-
tion or collection of income or for the management, conservation,
or maintenance of property held for the production of income.
Petitioner has not expressly argued that he is entitled to a
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011