-18-
Moreover, the checks that petitioners introduced at trial
were dated in February and March, well before the Port lease was
executed. We are not convinced that petitioners would have
incurred expenses of $2,285 before entering into the Port lease.
In addition, the record demonstrates that petitioners wrote
checks for business expenses unrelated to the deduction for
"Repairs and Maintenance", particularly when they wanted to have
a record of what they had paid. That being the case, petitioners
did not adequately explain why they dealt exclusively in cash
regarding the deduction in issue, especially in view of its
magnitude.
Finally, the Port lease is silent regarding the aesthetic
"requirements" for a shoeshine stand or the Port's "right" to
impose its aesthetic sensibilities on petitioners. In any event,
petitioners failed to call any representative of the Port to
testify regarding the need for the construction of a new
shoeshine stand or the repair of any existing stand.
In view of the foregoing, we hold that petitioners failed to
carry their burden of proof. While under other circumstances we
might be inclined to estimate a reasonable allowance, see Cohan
v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930), here, however, there
is no basis upon which an estimate may be made, see Vanicek v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 743 (1985), any allowance would amount
to unguided largess, see Williams v. United States, 245 F.2d 559,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011