Robert A. Inzano and Martha O. Chavez - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         

          exception to the Cohan rule and prohibits the estimation of these           
          expenses.  Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 827-828 (1968),            
          affd. per curiam 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969); sec. 1.274-5T(a),             
          Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014 (Nov. 6, 1985).              
               The loss of tax records does not leave a taxpayer helpless             
          in meeting his substantiation burden.  In general, when a                   
          taxpayer's records have been lost or destroyed through                      
          circumstances beyond his control, he is entitled to substantiate            
          the deductions by reconstructing his expenditures through other             
          credible evidence.  Malinowski v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 1120,               
          1125 (1979); Cook v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-590.                     
               Before we discuss each item of expenditure, we must briefly            
          comment on the history of this litigation.  Subsequent to the               
          filing of the petition on April 25, 1996, this case was first               
          calendared for trial in Los Angeles, California, on March 10,               
          1997.  On that date, petitioner husband appeared and requested a            
          continuance on the grounds that he was trying to obtain                     
          “additional” records from the attorney who had been handling                
          petitioners’ litigation against the seller of JDB.  The case was            
          continued and recalendared for trial for June 2, 1997.  On May              
          28, 1997, petitioners moved for a continuance on the grounds that           
          they had served a subpoena on Wells Fargo Bank, the successor to            
          their bank, First Interstate, and that there would be a delay in            
          the bank’s compliance therewith.  Petitioners’ motion was                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011