- 3 -
Simpson), and $1,064 for a flying lesson. Petitioner asserts
that these payments were ordinary and necessary expenses of his
computer engineering business. Petitioner has never obtained a
pilot's license nor piloted an airplane in carrying on his
business.
OPINION
Petitioner must prove that respondent's determinations set
forth in the notice of deficiency are incorrect. See Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Petitioner
also must prove his entitlement to any deduction. Deductions are
strictly a matter of legislative grace, and petitioner must show
that his claimed deductions are allowed by the Code. See also
New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).
Petitioner must maintain sufficient records to substantiate his
claimed deductions. See sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax
Regs.
Petitioner's burden of proof requires that he introduce
sufficient evidence to: (1) Make a prima facie case establishing
that respondent committed the errors alleged in the petition and
(2) overcome the evidence favorable to respondent. See Lyon v.
Commissioner, 1 B.T.A. 378, 379 (1925); see also Lawler v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-26. Petitioner relies mainly on
his testimony to meet his burden. We find his testimony
unpersuasive and incomplete. Petitioner provided no written
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011