- 16 - expenditures as union dues. Based on our examination of the entire record before us, we find that petitioner is entitled to an additional $152.50 of those disallowed expenditures as union dues. Except for the union dues which respondent conceded and the additional union dues which we found petitioner paid, total- ing $1,105.50, we find on the instant record that petitioner has failed to establish that he is entitled to any additional expen- ditures that were claimed in the job-expense section of Schedule A and that respondent determined to disallow. Accordingly, except to that extent, we sustain that determination. We next address the new matter raised by petitioner at trial that he is entitled to a deduction for a theft loss because Ms. Weber embezzled certain of his funds. In support of that deduc- tion, petitioner testified that approximately 1 week prior to the trial in this case he discovered that Ms. Weber had embezzled an undisclosed amount of money from him during the year at issue (1995 purported embezzlement). We are unwilling to rely on that testimony. On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed to establish that Ms. Weber embezzled any money from him during the year at issue.9 See Elliott v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 9Assuming arguendo that petitioner had established that Ms. Weber embezzled a certain amount of money from him during 1995, on the record before us, we find that he has failed to establish that he is entitled to a theft-loss deduction under sec. 165 for 1995 with respect to that embezzlement. That is because a theft loss is treated as sustained in the year during which the tax- (continued...)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