- 15 -
requirements of section 162 is a question of fact. See
Commissioner v. Heininger, 320 U.S. 467, 475 (1943).
Because petitioners have failed to establish that Crestmark
carried on any trade or business during the year at issue, a
fortiori the amounts claimed as deductions do not constitute
ordinary and necessary costs of carrying on a trade or business,
and thus are not deductible under section 162. Even if we were
to assume, arguendo, that Crestmark was carrying on a trade or
business, it has not met its burden of proof with respect to
these deductions. It presented no canceled checks, receipts, or
other evidence establishing that any claimed business expenses
were ever paid, the amount of the payments, or any other evidence
that any part of the claimed expenses were paid for the purposes
designated. The only witness to testify about the claimed
deductions was Boehm. His testimony was vague, conclusory, and
self-serving, and we are not required to accept it. See
Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 219 (1992).
Consequently, we uphold respondent's disallowance of Crestmark’s
deductions.
To reflect the foregoing and concessions by the parties,
Decisions will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: May 25, 2011