- 4 -
claimed by petitioner, there is nothing in this record except
petitioner's naked testimony to dispute respondent's
determinations. Petitioner's testimony, standing alone, is not
to be taken as gospel, and it does not carry petitioner's burden
of proof. Halle v. Commissioner, 7 T.C. 245 (1946), affd. 175
F.2d 500 (2d Cir. 1949). Therefore, so far as respondent's
determinations are based upon income and deductions as reported
by petitioner, we must sustain respondent.
There remain, however, several discrepancies between
respondent's determinations herein and the record regarding
petitioner's reported deductions. Specifically:
1. For the year 1992, respondent's notice of deficiency
purported to disallow $16,449 of business-related deductions
under Schedule C, whereas petitioner actually reported $8,011 of
such deductions. Respondent's explanation for this discrepancy
is that this was an "error" that respondent had corrected; how or
at what time this correction was made we do not know, but it
apparently is not in accordance with the income and deductions as
reported by petitioner, and we do not see what statutory basis
respondent has for making a determination of deficiency based on
a "correction". Sec. 6212. Likewise for the year 1993,
respondent disallowed $16,439 of petitioner's business expenses
under Schedule C, whereas the record herein shows that petitioner
actually claimed only $16,119. We will take the figures as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011