- 25 -
74, 77 (1986); Peterman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-129
(citing Geiger v. Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688, 689 (9th Cir.
1971), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159, and Urban Redev.
Corp. v. Commissioner, 294 F.2d 328, 332 (4th Cir. 1961), affg.
34 T.C. 845 (1960)). Petitioner has not presented any
documentary evidence to prove his gross receipts from farming for
1987, 1988, and 1989. Petitioner’s testimony regarding the
income he estimated he earned from farming during the years at
issue was contradictory and inconsistent. On this record, we
cannot estimate, nor are we required to estimate, petitioner’s
income from farming. See Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540,
543-544 (2d Cir. 1930). In addition, we are not able to
ascertain what income he earned from other sources during the
years at issue. Petitioner has not met his burden of proving he
received gross receipts of 50 percent or more from farming as
required under section 108(g)(2)(B). Thus, we hold that
petitioner is not entitled to the exclusion under section
108(a)(1)(C), and he must include $31,238 in gross income by
reason of the discharge of his indebtedness.
Tribal Council Expenses
Petitioner claims he is entitled to deduct unreimbursed
business expenses, travel costs, and mileage incurred while
performing activities on behalf of the tribal council, or, in the
alternative, that he is entitled to deduct such expenses as a
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011