- 3 -
provide supporting information." According to Mr. Stolmar, he
was never contacted prior to the respective dates on which the
notices were issued, and therefore the statements in the notices
about petitioners' failure to provide "supporting information" to
respondent with respect to the expenses claimed in Schedules C of
the returns in question are false. Mr. Stolmar claims that,
consequently, the notices are null and void.
We disagree. Regardless whether respondent requested "sup-
porting information" with respect to the Schedule C expenses at
issue before the notices were issued, a trial before this Court
is a proceeding de novo, and our determination as to Mr.
Stolmar's tax liability must be based on the merits of these
cases and not on any record developed at the administrative
level. Greenberg's Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324,
328 (1974). We conclude that the notices are valid and are not
null and void. See id.
Mr. Stolmar has the burden to show that respondent's deter-
minations in the notices are wrong. Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Moreover, deductions are
strictly a matter of legislative grace, and Mr. Stolmar must meet
the statutory requirements for the Schedule C expense deductions
claimed in the returns in question. INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commis-
sioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992). Mr. Stolmar has not provided
this Court with any evidence showing his entitlement to the
Schedule C expense deductions that remain at issue or proving
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011