- 14 -
than his own testimony, in support of these allegations.
Petitioner's own assertions are simply insufficient to establish
that he is entitled to claim a theft loss for the amounts paid to
Mr. Kelley.
Petitioner also asserts that because the computer program is
now worthless, Mr. Kelley has committed theft by deception. We
disagree. A loss resulting from investments in questionable
enterprises does not, per se, amount to theft. See Hartwick v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-424; Ennis v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1986-178. There is no persuasive evidence of any
misrepresentations by Mr. Kelley in the record. In essence, the
record here reflects that petitioner invested in an idea of Mr.
Kelley's that never materialized. Accordingly, petitioner is not
entitled to a theft loss deduction for amounts paid to Mr.
Kelley.
IV. Section 162--Trade or Business Expenses
Petitioner's final argument is that the $30,550 paid for the
release of the computer leases, the $9,899 paid under the
computer leases, and the $17,715 paid to Mr. Miller for
investigating the computer program are deductible as an ordinary
and necessary business expense under section 162. Petitioner
asserts that the payments were ordinary and necessary business
expense under two alternative theories. First, petitioner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011