- 8 -
(claimed Schedule C expenses) and a net loss of $40,439.
In the notice, respondent determined that petitioner re-
ceived $2,932 as a refund of State income tax that he had de-
ducted in a prior year and increased petitioner’s income by that
amount. In addition, respondent disallowed in the notice the
following claimed in the 1995 return: (1) The entire amount
($20,550) of the NOL carryforward claimed as a deduction on page
1, line 21, of that return; (2) the entire amount ($42,939) of
the deduction claimed for alleged Schedule C expenses; and
(3) $9,934 of the total expenses ($13,834) claimed, before the 2-
percent adjustment, in the job-expense section of Schedule A.
Respondent also determined in the notice that petitioner is
liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).
OPINION
Petitioner has the burden of showing error in respondent's
determinations in the notice and his entitlement to any new
matter that he claimed at trial. See Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Petitioner attempted to satisfy his burden of proof in this
case through his own testimony and certain documentary evidence.5
Based on our observation of petitioner at trial, including his
demeanor, we did not find petitioner to be credible. In addi-
5Although we provided petitioner an opportunity to file a
brief in this case, petitioner declined to do so.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011