- 5 -
was not substantial. Hart v. Commissioner, supra (trading was
not substantial where taxpayer had 36, 30, and 15 sales of stock
during each of the years in question); Paoli v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1991-351 (trading was not substantial where taxpayer
had 326 sales transactions, but sales were not regular and
continuous). Accordingly, we find that petitioner was an
investor, not a trader, and he is not allowed to deduct
investment related expenses under section 162.
Petitioners failed to substantiate the expenses in dispute
as required under section 6001. Petitioner had no books and
records. His handwritten notes do not constitute evidence of
interest payments. His cash register receipts for alleged
computer purchases do not total the amount claimed, nor do they
show the method of depreciation used. There is nothing in the
record about office expenses. In short, respondent disallowed
these expenses for, inter alia, lack of substantiation.
Nevertheless, at trial petitioner failed to substantiate his
expenses. Therefore, petitioners may not deduct such expenses
under section 212. We hold for respondent on these issues.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011