- 11 -
likely incurred deductible expenses relating to the California
Barbecue business, we have no evidence regarding the amount of
such expenses. "While it is within the purview of this Court to
estimate the amount of allowable deductions where there is
evidence that deductible expenses were incurred (Cohan v.
Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930)), we must have some
basis on which an estimate may be made." Vanicek v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 742-743 (1985). Here, petitioner
could have provided such a basis but refused to do so. Without
such a basis, the allowance of any such deductions would amount
to "unguided largess". Williams v. United States, 245 F.2d 559,
560 (5th Cir. 1957). Accordingly, on the evidence before us, we
hold that petitioner is liable for taxes upon the amounts
reported in the Forms 1099-MISC.5
At trial, petitioner argued that California Barbecue was
merely a business name for a corporation named Kaytoo, Inc.
Respondent's certified transcripts of account indicate, however,
that income paid to California Barbecue was paid to petitioner
individually. An example of such evidence is a certified
5 Petitioner deposited income from California Barbecue into
the Great Western Bank, under account No. 308-80757-8. At the
time of trial, respondent did not have records of amounts
deposited into Great Western Bank account No. 308-80757-8.
Accordingly, the income attributed to petitioner doing business
as California Barbecue reflects only those amounts revealed in
the Forms 1099-MISC; it does not include other amounts that may
have been deposited into that account. In this regard, we note
that third-party payers are required only to report payments over
$600. Sec. 6041(a). We have no information of the extent to
which petitioner, doing business as California Barbecue, received
payments of less than $600.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011