- 5 -
presents evidence sufficient to provide some rational basis upon
which estimates may be made. Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.
731, 743 (1985).
At trial, the parties made their respective arguments and
concessions based on amounts reported in the revised Schedule C
which was submitted with petitioners' amended return. Thus, for
clarity and convenience, we address petitioners' claimed
deductions using the amounts reported in the revised Schedule C.
Basically, this is a substantiation case.
We note that although Excel reimbursed petitioner for dues,
radio, vouchers, tolls, and commissions, Excel nevertheless
included these amounts in petitioner's weekly pay statement under
"Gross Income". This is misleading and inaccurate because it
gives the appearance that petitioner earned more in gross income
than was the case.
The president of Excel testified that the income after
reimbursements was $36,583.66. At trial, respondent conceded
that Excel reimbursed petitioner $14,694.49 for dues, radio,
vouchers, tolls, and commissions and that income after such
reimbursements was $36,583.66. This is the amount which we find
should have been reported as gross income on petitioners'
Schedule C. Although the parties stipulated that the notice of
deficiency allowed certain amounts for dues, radio, vouchers and
commissions as deductions, these reimbursed amounts are not
deductible as business expenses. Flower v. Commissioner, 61 T.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011