Aladar and Ilona G. Stolmar, Deceased - Page 3

                                        - 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