- 6 -
reached, the case would be recalendared for trial. Over 1 year
later, the parties had failed to agree on a settlement; whereupon
the case was recalendared for completion of the trial.
The evidence presented by petitioner to substantiate his
expenses was scant. Although he produced copies of a series of
canceled checks, many of the checks were payable to cash, and no
receipts, bills, or invoices were produced to corroborate or
associate any of the checks with the expense purportedly being
paid. Moreover, as to each of the expenses at issue, the checks
submitted to support the expense claimed did not add up to or
equal the amount claimed as an expense on the return.
Petitioner's basic answer was that he could not "come up" with
the missing checks. Moreover, the evidence fails to support a
finding that petitioner was engaged in a trade or business during
the years in question. Petitioner acknowledged that he was no
longer in the building construction business during 1991 and
1992, and the Court is satisfied that petitioner was not engaged
in a medical research and development activity during the 2 years
at issue. At best, petitioner was attempting to start or begin
an activity in medical research, and the evidence falls short of
establishing that such an activity ever commenced or was likely
to commence.
Section 162(a) provides generally that there shall be
allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011