- 10 -
fanciful, completely unsupported by any documentary evidence, and
not otherwise corroborated. In addition, the record includes
indications contrary to petitioner's assertions. For example, we
are not convinced that petitioner had the financial resources to
incur expenses of the magnitude claimed on his Schedules C.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain respondent's
determination on this issue.
Next, we consider whether petitioner's net capital loss
should be limited to $282 as opposed to $2,864, as claimed on his
1995 Federal income tax return. Respondent contends that the
discrepancy is due to a math error made by petitioner, changes in
petitioner's cost basis, and the omission of certain
transactions. Petitioner failed to produce any evidence,
including testimony, regarding this matter. In light of
petitioner's complete failure of proof, we sustain respondent's
determination on this issue. See Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra; Welch v. Helvering, supra.
Finally, we consider whether petitioner is liable for the
accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) for 1995 and 1996.
Section 6662(a) and (b)(1) provides that if any portion of
an underpayment of tax is attributable to negligence or disregard
of rules or regulations, then there shall be added to the tax an
amount equal to 20 percent of the amount of the underpayment that
is so attributable. The term "negligence" includes any failure
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011