- 19 -
At trial, petitioner and his C.P.A. testified that the
$100,000 in miscellaneous expenses and the $5,797 in travel
expenses were paid by petitioner as a stockholder of PMI.
However, petitioner did not produce any records at trial to
substantiate these claimed expenses. A determination of basis is
a factual one, for which the burden of proof rests with peti-
tioner. Hinckley v. Commissioner, 410 F.2d 937 (8th Cir. 1969),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1967-180. Petitioner's self-serving testimony,
without any additional proof, fails to meet this burden. Because
petitioner failed to substantiate his expenses, the miscellaneous
and travel expenses are not allowable items in computing peti-
tioner's basis in his PMI stock.
Petitioner argues on brief that $8,800 in accounting fees
should be included in the basis of his PMI stock.9 Petitioner
has failed to demonstrate that the accounting firm did any work
related to the PMI stock. In her notice of deficiency, respon-
dent has allowed this $8,800 in fees as miscellaneous deductions.
Respondent's notice of deficiency is presumed correct. Welch v.
Helvering, supra at 115. Since petitioner failed to put on any
evidence, outside of his own testimony, as to the nature of the
accounting work, we find for respondent.
9Petitioner reported $1,637 of miscellaneous legal fees in
the basis of his PMI stock. Respondent, in her notice of
deficiency, allowed these expenses as miscellaneous itemized
deductions. Petitioner, in his reply brief, agreed that these
fees were properly accounted for in the notice of deficiency.
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