Alec Jeffrey Megibow - Page 12

                                                - 12 -                                                  
            His testimony was vague, unsupported by any billing records or                              
            any other tangible work product that would indicate the business                            
            or tax-related nature of the work, and does not convince us that                            
            any of the expense was related to petitioner's trade or business                            
            or tax-related matters.  Cf. United States v. Gilmore, 372 U.S.                             
            39 (1963) (to be deductible as a business or profit seeking                                 
            expense, it is insufficient that an expenditure have a business                             
            or income-related consequence if the origin of the expense is not                           
            in the business or profit seeking activity).  We accord                                     
            Mr. Bentley's testimony no weight, and, thus, petitioner has                                
            failed to carry his burden of proof on this matter.  Respondent’s                           
            determination of a deficiency is sustained to the extent                                    
            respondent denied petitioner’s deduction for the Bentley payment.                           
            IV.  Payment From Radiology Affiliates                                                      
                  Radiology Affiliates of NY (Radiology Affiliates) employed                            
            petitioner during 1993.  Petitioner received $30,000 from                                   
            Radiology Affiliates during 1993 (the $30,000 payment), which he                            
            did not report as gross income.  Respondent determined that the                             
            $30,000 payment was compensation for services to be performed in                            
            the future and increased petitioner’s gross income by $30,000 on                            
            account thereof.  Petitioner argues that the $30,000 payment was                            
            not an item of gross income because it was a loan.                                          
                  Generally, compensation for services is an item of gross                              
            income, including compensation received for future services.                                
            Sec. 61(a)(3); e.g., Huebner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1966-73                            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011