-19-
560 (5th Cir. 1957).10 Accordingly, we sustain respondent's
determination on this issue.
6. Supplies
Petitioners claimed a deduction for "Supplies" in the amount
of $2,250. In the notice of deficiency, respondent allowed $219
of the claimed deduction and disallowed the balance for lack of
substantiation. However, at trial, respondent conceded that
petitioners are entitled to deduct an additional $9.
At trial, petitioners presented limited records related to
the claimed deduction. Petitioners did produce several invoices
from MacPherson Leather bearing dates throughout the year, as
well as a canceled check, that together total $228, which
respondent allowed. Petitioners allege that additional records
substantiating the claimed deduction were destroyed in a fire.11
Again, however, no explanation was provided why some of these
records escaped destruction while others did not. Nevertheless,
we are satisfied that petitioners did in fact incur additional
expense for supplies. Based on the record as a whole, we hold
that petitioners are entitled to deduct $250 for supplies in
addition to the amount allowed by respondent. Cohan v.
Commissioner, supra.
10 In addition, any amount spent to acquire a new stand
might be a capital expenditure and for that reason not a current
expense. Secs. 263(a), 167, 168, 179(c).
11 See supra note 4.
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