Jordon Jay Fingar - Page 18

                                       - 18 -                                         
          the requirements of section 165 and the regulations thereunder.             
          If the theft loss is not connected with a taxpayer's trade or               
          business, a deduction shall be allowed only to the extent that              
          the amount of loss to the taxpayer arising from each casualty               
          exceeds $100.  Sec. 165(c)(3).                                              
               At trial and on brief, petitioner asserts that he is                   
          entitled to a $1,739 theft loss deduction not previously claimed            
          on his 1979 return for camera equipment allegedly stolen from his           
          car in March of 1979.  Petitioner, however, has not established             
          that he has met the requirements of section 165 entitling him to            
          such a deduction.  Petitioner did not submit a police report as             
          evidence that the theft actually occurred, nor did he submit                
          receipts to establish the amount spent for each item.                       
          Accordingly, petitioner has failed to carry the burden of proof             
          on this issue.                                                              
          Issue 6.  Section 6651 (a)(1) Addition to Tax                               
               For 1979 and 1980, respondent determined that petitioner,              
          pursuant to section 6651(a)(1), is liable for additions to tax of           
          $3,823 and $9,248, respectively.                                            
               Section 6651 imposes an addition to tax for failure to                 
          timely file a Federal income tax return unless it is shown that             
          the failure is due to reasonable cause and not due to willful               
          neglect.  Petitioner has the burden of proving that respondent's            
          determination of the addition to tax is erroneous.  Rule 142(a);            
          Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. at 115.                                        




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011