- 40 -
testimony regarding the payments fails to provide
sufficient information regarding the "supplies" purchased
or the "consulting and legal work" actually performed.
As stated earlier, we are not required to accept a tax-
payer's self-serving testimony. See, e.g., Neidringhaus
v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. at 219-220; Tokarski v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. at 77; Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65
T.C. at 90. For the above reasons, we hold that petitioner
has failed to establish that he is entitled to a deduction
for these payments, and we sustain respondent on this
issue.
C. Reimbursed Payments Allegedly Made on Behalf of One
Client
Included among the subject returns and allowances for
1990 are payments totaling $21,679.75, that petitioner
allegedly made on behalf of a client, Dr. Strom, for
licensing fees and tax liabilities. Petitioner asserts
that Dr. Strom reimbursed petitioner for these payments,
as discussed below, and that they should be treated as
offsets to gross income or as ordinary and necessary
business expenses under section 162. In passing, we
note that petitioner allegedly made two other payments
on behalf of or to Dr. Strom in 1990, $59.02, and $930,
that petitioner also treated as "direct payments".
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011