- 133 -
cord, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of
showing that UVW’s December 18, 1992 check was paid pursuant to a
guaranty that petitioner provided on a loan from Mr. Vulis to MP
Electronics.84 On the record before us, we find that petitioner
has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he is enti-
tled for 1992 to a $20,000 deduction under section 166 for the
payment of a loan guaranty.
83(...continued)
MP Electronics and that petitioner was a guarantor on any such
loan. We infer from petitioner’s failure to proffer any such
documentary evidence that any such evidence does not exist and
that, if it does exist, it would not have substantiated peti-
tioner’s position with respect to UVW’s December 18, 1992 check.
We also note that, when Mr. Raja was questioned about the claimed
loan and guaranty in question, he gave inconsistent testimony.
We further note that, when Mr. Vulis was questioned about UVW’s
December 18, 1992 check, he had no recollection of either that
check or the name MP Electronics. Nor could Mr. Vulis recall
whether Commonwealth Enterprises had entered into any transac-
tions with Mr. Raja.
84Assuming arguendo that petitioner had established that
UVW’s December 18, 1992 check was paid to satisfy his guaranty of
a loan from Mr. Vulis to M.P. Electronics, on the record before
us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of
establishing that he satisfies the requirements of sec. 1.166-9,
Income Tax Regs., and that therefore he is entitled under sec.
166 to a business bad debt deduction for 1992 with respect to
that payment.
Although not altogether clear, it appears that petitioner
contends in the alternative to deducting the $20,000 payment
under sec. 166 that that payment is deductible under sec. 162(a).
On the instant record, we find that petitioner has failed to
carry his burden of showing that the $20,000 payment at issue is
an ordinary and necessary expense paid during 1992 in carrying on
his Schedule C business. On the record before us, we find that
petitioner has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he
is entitled under sec. 162(a) to a deduction for 1992 for the
$20,000 payment at issue.
Page: Previous 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011