Dartmouth Clubs, Inc. - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
          claimed deductions before August 1999.                                      
               On this record, we conclude that respondent's position was             
          substantially justified.  In the notice of deficiency, respondent           
          premised the adjustments primarily on petitioner's failure to               
          substantiate items on its returns.  Taxpayers do not have an                
          inherent right to take tax deductions.  Deductions are a matter             
          of legislative grace, and a taxpayer bears the burden of proving            
          entitlement to any deduction claimed.  See Deputy v. du Pont, 308           
          U.S. 488, 493 (1940); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S.           
          435, 440 (1934).  This includes the burden of substantiating the            
          amount and purpose of the item claimed.  See sec. 6001; Hradesky            
          v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 89-90 (1975), affd. per curiam 540             
          F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976); sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.  We            
          find that "It was reasonable for respondent not to concede the              
          adjustments until * * * [he] had received and verified adequate             
          substantiation for the items in question."  Simpson Fin. Servs.,            
          Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-317 (citing Harrison v.               
          Commissioner, 854 F.2d 263, 265 (7th Cir. 1988), affg. T.C. Memo.           
          1987-52; Sokol v. Commissioner, supra at 765).                              
               Petitioner argues that the Commissioner mishandled this                
          case, and that if it had been administered properly, petitioner             
          would have incurred much less expense.  Petitioner states that              
          the Appeals officer raised issues that were not in the revenue              
          agent's examination report, and that it was denied the                      






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011