Robert J. Sugarman - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          Interest Deduction                                                          
               Petitioner admitted at trial that, to the extent that his              
          interest deduction exceeded that allowed by respondent, it could            
          only be substantiated by a schedule of expenses.  Petitioner                
          bears the burden of proof.  Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290            
          U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  The schedule of expenses, if it had been             
          admitted at trial, is not sufficient to meet this burden, and               
          therefore we find for respondent on this issue.  Cluck v.                   
          Commissioner, 105 T.C. 324, 338 (1995)(summary schedules did not            
          demonstrate taxpayer's entitlement to claimed deductions).                  
          Addition to Tax Under Section 6651(a)(1)                                    
               Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to           
          file a return on the date prescribed (determined with regard to             
          any extension of time for filing), unless it is shown that such             
          failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful                   
          neglect.  The taxpayer has the burden of proof to show the                  
          addition is improper.  United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245            
          (1985).                                                                     
               Respondent determined that petitioner's 1989 Federal income            
          tax return was due, after extension, on August 15, 1990.                    
          Petitioner has stipulated that he filed his Federal income tax              

               6(...continued)                                                        
          debt instrument (i.e., the mortgage) is not a payment in cash as            
          required under sec. 71(b)(1).  Because of our finding in the                
          previous sections that the payments would not have terminated               
          upon Colleen's death and are therefore not alimony, this argument           
          is now moot.                                                                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011