- 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