- 13 -
We agree with respondent. Petitioner testified that he used
a reconstruction in preparing his 1988 Form 2106. Petitioner
could not recall, however, whether the reconstruction that was
received into evidence was the same reconstruction that was used
in preparation of his 1988 Form 2106 or when the reconstruction
that was received into evidence was prepared. If the
reconstruction was not the one used in preparing the return,
there is no explanation for the missing more contemporaneous
record. In his brief, petitioner acknowledges the difficulty of
recalling details occurring 7 years before the trial, and a
recent reconstruction would inherently be susceptible to error.
We are not persuaded that the reconstruction is reasonable or
reliable.
Petitioner's testimony regarding the claimed parking fees
and tolls is likewise vague and unconvincing. Petitioner's
claimed parking fees were based on "an average trip". Petitioner
did not introduce any evidence or testify as to the specific
number of airport fees (for landing and parking petitioner's
airplanes) or to the number of vehicle parking fees that were
included on his 1988 Form 2106. Furthermore, petitioner did not
attempt to reconstruct any of the claimed parking fee expenses.
Respondent's determination that petitioner is not entitled
to employee business expenses will be sustained.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011