Leo and Alla Goldberg - Page 52

                                        -52-                                          
               "Necessary" has been construed to mean "appropriate" or                
          "helpful", not "indispensable" or "required".  Ford v.                      
          Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1300, 1306 (1971), affd. 487 F.2d 1025 (9th           
          Cir. 1973).  It is sufficient if "there are also reasonably                 
          evident business ends to be served, and the intention to serve              
          them appears adequately from the record."  B. Manischewitz Co. v.           
          Commissioner, 10 T.C. 1139, 1145 (1948).  The substantiated                 
          expenses were also necessary, in that they were incurred with the           
          intention of serving the business end, mainly the conduct of a              
          business school in Russia.                                                  
               Petitioners are entitled to deduct $20,033 as ordinary and             
          necessary expenses of the business school on their 1991                     
          Schedule C.                                                                 
          Unreported Income--Chorny                                                   
               Respondent determined that petitioners failed to report                
          Schedule C income of $20,472 and $9,250 in 1990 and 1991,                   
          respectively.                                                               
               At trial, petitioner testified that the payments received              
          from Chorny represented loan repayments.  As evidence of the                
          debt, petitioners offered reproductions of checks payable to                
          Chorny or Margarita Chorny.                                                 
               We are not persuaded by the checks payable to the Chornys              
          that Chorny was indebted to petitioner or that the checks                   
          petitioner received during 1990 and 1991 from Chorny were not               
          includable in petitioners' income.  At the trial of this case,              




Page:  Previous  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011