- 5 -
There is, however, no means by which to ascertain from the
sheets what expenses claimed by petitioner as deductions were
incurred. The sheets do not specify amounts paid by petitioner,
and the information is simply too general. Petitioner did not
provide any receipts, canceled checks, or any type of
documentation that would connect the information provided on the
sheets with the claimed deductions. Petitioner provided nothing
more than her own curiously vague testimony in an effort to prove
the expenses were actually incurred. This Court is not bound to
accept the self-serving, unverified testimony of a taxpayer. See
Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 212 (1992).
With respect to the attorney's fees incurred in the sale of
the tractor in 1995, even if they were substantiated, they would
not be deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense
in 1994. See Of Course, Inc. v. Commissioner, 499 F.2d 754, 756
(4th Cir. 1974), revg. en banc 59 T.C. 146 (1972). Furthermore,
with regard to the "test" expense, this was an expense of the
driver, who was an independent contractor, and was not
petitioner's expense. With respect to other items such as
insurance and taxes, clearly petitioner could have obtained some
documentation. Rather than obtain evidence to support her
claims, petitioner's litigation tactic seems to have been to
attempt to blame respondent for her lack of records. But, as far
as we can determine, respondent allowed deductions for all
expenses that were substantiated.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011