- 3 -
Petitioner is a multi-talented individual. She works
primarily as a legal secretary, having received her juris doctor
degree from Atlanta Law School. In addition to her work in the
legal field, petitioner is an income tax return preparer, artist,
photographer, author, and minister. Respondent agrees that
petitioner possessed a business purpose for her pursuit of all of
these occupations.
The first issue for decision is whether petitioner is
entitled to Schedule C business expense deductions in excess of
the amounts allowed by respondent. In general, respondent's
position is that petitioner failed to substantiate the claimed
deductions in excess of the amounts allowed in the statutory
notice of deficiency.
Respondent's determinations in the statutory notice of
deficiency are presumed to be correct, and petitioner bears the
burden of proving otherwise. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering,
290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Moreover, deductions are strictly a
matter of legislative grace, and petitioner bears the burden of
proving her entitlement to any deductions claimed. Rule 142(a);
INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); New
Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).
Petitioner's burden includes the requirement that she
substantiate any deductions claimed. Hradesky v. Commissioner,
65 T.C. 87 (1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011