Paul Trans and Thuy Bich Dang - Page 20




                                       - 20 -                                         

          expenses subject to section 274, if a claimed business expense is           
          deductible, but the taxpayer is unable to substantiate it                   
          adequately, the Court is permitted to make as close an                      
          approximation as possible, bearing heavily on the taxpayer whose            
          inexactitude is of his own making.  See Cohan v. Commissioner, 39           
          F.2d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 1930).  The estimate, however, must have a           
          credible evidentiary basis.  See Norgaard v. Commissioner, supra            
          at 879; Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 743 (1985).                   
               The record in this case provides no credible evidentiary               
          basis to support petitioners' claimed deductions in excess of the           
          $15,535 allowed by respondent.  Although petitioners introduced             
          into evidence copies of numerous checks and receipts, these                 
          documents cannot be readily correlated to the deductions                    
          petitioners claimed on their Schedule C for tax year 1994.  For             
          example, the documents purport to establish, among other things,            
          that during 1994 Transnet paid $18,150 to Richard Hartman and               
          $3,500 to Son Dang as compensation for computer programming                 
          services.  Petitioners’ Schedule C for tax year 1994, however,              
          reports no deduction for wages paid, nor did Transnet issue Forms           
          1099 to Son Dang or Richard Hartman in 1994.13                              

               13 The evidence with regard to Richard Hartman is                      
          particularly inscrutable.  The documents introduced by                      
          petitioners include invoices issued by Advanced Consulting                  
          Experts to Intel, listing Richard Hartman as contractor, and                
          bearing notations that expense reimbursements are to be made                
          directly to Hartman.  Nowhere on these invoices is there any                
          mention of Transnet or petitioners.  The copies of the checks to            
          Hartman that petitioners have introduced into evidence do not               
          show that they have been canceled by the bank and appear to have            
                                                             (continued...)           

Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011