- 10 -
statutory presumption that he signed the 1995 return.6
We turn next to petitioner’s contention that respondent
erred in determining to include in petitioner’s income a State
income tax refund of $2,932 that he had deducted in a prior year.
The record contains no evidence to support that contention other
than petitioner’s self-serving testimony, on which we are unwill-
ing to rely. On the record before us, we find that petitioner
has failed to satisfy his burden to show error in respondent’s
determination to include in his income a $2,932 State tax refund.
Accordingly, we sustain that determination.
We turn now to petitioner’s contentions that respondent
erred in determining to disallow (a) the deduction claimed for an
alleged NOL carryforward (NOL deduction), (b) the deductions
claimed for alleged Schedule C expenses, and (c) $9,934 of the
total expenses ($13,834) claimed, before the 2-percent adjust-
ment, in the job-expense section of Schedule A. Deductions are
strictly a matter of legislative grace, and petitioner bears the
burden of proving that he is entitled to any deductions claimed.
6In any event, petitioner conceded at trial that he received
$48,328.98 and $10,862.56 of wage income from Wilder and
Goodfellow, respectively, and that he earned $165 of taxable
interest income, all of which income was reported in the 1995
return. With respect to the $2,501 that was reported in the 1995
return as unemployment compensation, at trial petitioner did not
concede or deny that he received such compensation. He testified
that he did not know anything about such compensation, including
whether or not he received it. On the instant record, we find
that petitioner has failed to show that he did not receive the
unemployment compensation reported in the 1995 return.
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