Charles A. Dennis and Alison M. Dennis - Page 12

                                       - 12 -                                         
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-212, affd. without published                  
          opinion 85 F.3d 624 (5th Cir. 1996).                                        
          Commission Expense                                                          
               In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed $403 of             
          commission expenses claimed by petitioners on Schedule C of their           
          1989 returns.  Petitioner testified that he presented                       
          substantiation to respondent at some point, yet failed to                   
          introduce any such substantiation for this Court to review.                 
          Generally, petitioners have the burden of proving that the                  
          determinations made by respondent in the notice of deficiency are           
          erroneous.  Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).           
          Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing                
          their entitlement to the additional $403 of commission expense.             
          Accordingly, we hold for respondent on this issue.                          
          Advance Commissions                                                         
               Petitioner received advance commissions of $93,413,                    
          $17,839.79, $51,161, and $42,529 for the 1988, 1989, 1990, and              
          1991 tax years, respectively.  Respondent determined that these             
          advance commissions were income when received because petitioner            
          had complete dominion and control over the proceeds, there was no           
          fixed date for repayment, and petitioner never had to repay his             
          employer for the excess commissions.  Petitioner contends that              
          these amounts received are loans for which petitioner was                   
          personally liable and which he did in fact fully repay.                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011