- 12 -
Petitioner concedes that he is unable to substantiate the
expenses at issue. He contends that all evidence pertaining to
such expenses was provided to his accountants, who in turn
relinquished possession of such evidence to the Government during
the grand jury phase of the criminal investigation against him.
Respondent, however, has informed the Court that she requested
and received all evidence used by the grand jury and that no such
records were among the materials she received.
We find that having failed to provide substantiation of the
Schedule C expenses, petitioner has not carried his burden of
proof on this issue. Accordingly, respondent's determination is
sustained.
Investment Tax Credit
Respondent also determined that petitioner is not entitled
to an investment tax credit in the amount of $821 for 1982
because it has not been established that petitioner acquired any
qualified investment property during the taxable year. As noted
above, respondent's determinations are benefited by a presumption
of correctness and petitioner bears the burden of proving the
contrary. Rule 142(a); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, supra
at 440; Welch v. Helvering, supra at 115.
Petitioner has not offered any evidence with respect to the
investment tax credit claimed on the purchase of his Corvette
automobile. Again, petitioner restricts his entire argument to
the contention that the statute of limitations precludes
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011