- 7 -
for the requirement that he maintain books and records. Mills v.
Commissioner, supra at 749; Harper v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1121,
1129 (1970).
Second, respondent reduced petitioner's income attributable
to the sale of certain securities by the amount of petitioner's
verifiable basis in those securities. With respect to the sale
of other securities, respondent included all the proceeds in
petitioner's income because no information was provided by
petitioner regarding his basis. Petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that he is entitled to a basis in the securities in
excess of that determined by respondent. Rule 142(a); Burnet v.
Houston, 283 U.S. 223, 227-228 (1931). Section 1012 provides
that the basis of property shall be the cost of such property.
Under the circumstances present here, "cost", for purposes of the
Code, means the amount paid by petitioner. Detroit Edison Co. v.
Commissioner, 319 U.S. 98, 102 (1943); Borg v. Commissioner, 50
T.C. 257, 263 (1968). Petitioner did not provide respondent with
any evidence regarding the cost to him of any of the sold
securities. We find that petitioner has not met his burden of
proving that he paid any amount in excess of that determined by
respondent.
Third, petitioner asserts that the bank charges that are
recorded on his bank statement should be allowed as deductions in
respondent's calculation of income. Section 162 allows as a
deduction all the ordinary and necessary business expenses paid
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011