- 21 -
that, by agreement, the payment of $34,226 during 1990 was in
part a deferral of fees from years prior to 1990.
Mr. Cramer testified that, during the period from 1987 to
1990, he and Mr. Tye spent "more time and energy and adrenalin
and research" on the embezzlement suit than on the insurance
suit. Mr. Cramer testified that his and Mr. Tye's work on the
embezzlement suit versus the insurance suit during the period
from 1987 to 1990 "could have been 80/20 in favor of the
embezzlement case but at least 50/50."
We are satisfied by the record in the instant case that some
of the $34,226 in attorneys' fees paid during 1990 were incurred
in defense of the embezzlement suit. Petitioners, however, have
not established the precise amount of the deduction; i.e., the
actual amount of attorneys' fees that were incurred in defense of
the embezzlement suit. Nonetheless, because petitioners have
established that they are entitled to a deduction in some amount,
we shall make a reasonable approximation of the amount allowable,
"bearing heavily * * * upon the taxpayer whose inexactitude is of
his own making." Cohan v. Commissioner, supra at 543-544.
Mr. Cramer estimated that between 50 and 80 percent of his
and Mr. Tye's time was spent on the embezzlement suit during the
period from 1987 to 1990. As we stated above, petitioners
proposed that 65 percent of the total attorneys' fees be
considered attributable to the embezzlement suit. We are
persuaded by petitioner's testimony that the attorneys' fees paid
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011