- -14
amounts disallowed by respondent were disallowed for lack of
substantiation. As we stated in that case, "because petitioner
was unable to substantiate her husband's claimed deductions does
not mean the deductions had no basis in fact or law." Douglas v.
Commissioner, supra at 763. We hold that petitioner is not
entitled to innocent spouse relief with respect to the disallowed
deductions.
Petitioner next contends that some of the deductions for Mr.
Velinsky's band management business are proper and were properly
substantiated. Respondent's position is that petitioner has not
produced sufficient evidence to substantiate the claimed
deductions in amounts in excess of those allowed by respondent or
conceded by respondent at trial.
The parties have stipulated into the record copies of
documents kept by Mr. Velinsky. However, since Mr. Velinsky was
deceased at the time of the trial of this case, we do not have
his testimony as to the validity of the deductions. Petitioner
and Mr. Velinsky's return preparer, Mr. Paquette, testified with
respect to the claimed deductions.
Rev. Proc. 89-66, 1989-2 C.B. 792,4 provides optional
mileage rates for employers and self-employed individuals.
Section 162 allows as a deduction ordinary and necessary expenses
4 Since petitioner is allowed a greater deduction using the
standard mileage rate deduction, petitioner is not allowed a
depreciation deduction. See Rev. Proc. 74-23, 1974-2 C.B. 476.
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