- 20 -
California return or support his assertion that the California
return was correct when filed. The absence of documentary
evidence was not explained by petitioner. The fact that the
California return was signed under penalty of perjury is not
sufficient to substantiate the deductions claimed on it. See
Wilkinson v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 633, 639 (1979); Roberts v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 834, 836-837 (1974). Thus, petitioner has
failed to substantiate the claimed deductions and, therefore, is
not entitled to the claimed itemized deductions.
The record does contain a copy of a real estate tax bill for
the Inglewood property for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1980.
That document reflects a property tax assessment of $235.52.
Moreover, in 1983, taxpayers were entitled to a deduction for
general sales tax, which, in the absence of substantiation of
actual expenditure, could be claimed based on tables promulgated
by respondent based upon reported income. Also in 1983, itemized
deductions necessarily had to exceed the zero bracket amount in
order to be beneficial taxwise. The zero bracket amount for 1983
for a married taxpayer filing single was $1,700. The allowance
of any amount based on the 1980 real estate tax assessment for
the Inglewood property and an allowance for sales taxes would not
come anywhere near $1,700. Accordingly, we deny petitioner's
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011