John Mosier and Sarah Spain - Page 5




                                        - 4 -                                         
          interest expense in those years from what was reflected in the              
          notice of deficiency.3  Respondent bears the burden of proving              
          increased deficiencies pursuant to Rule 142(a) and has not                  
          presented sufficient evidence to support such a finding.  Thus,             
          under respondent’s limited concession, petitioners are entitled             
          to deductions for interest expenses of $3,925 in 1993, $2,774 in            
          1994, and $1,097 in 1995.                                                   
               The next concession concerns the travel expenses deducted by           
          petitioners with respect to the writing/lecturing business.                 
          Petitioners deducted expenses of $4,094, $6,355, and $6,7904 in             
          1993, 1994, and 1995.  Respondent allowed in the notice of                  


          3Respondent’s concession doubles the interest expense                       
          reflected in the notice of deficiency as actually having been               
          paid in each individual year.  The decreases in the amounts                 
          allowed as deductions are due to the notice’s capitalization of             
          the interest expenses under sec. 263A, which would have resulted            
          in the dispersion of the expenses across the span of several                
          years, also drawing into the years in issue expenses incurred               
          prior thereto.  However, contrary to respondent’s position in the           
          notice of deficiency (which he now concedes), sec. 263A does not            
          apply to writers.  Sec. 263A(h)(1).  The parties’ intentions are            
          unclear with respect to the interrelationship of the concession             
          concerning capitalization and the concessions of specific amounts           
          of various expenses.  We assume that the parties intended the               
          conceded amounts to reflect the changes caused by the switch from           
          capitalization, and that the amounts remaining at issue are those           
          amounts which petitioners argue were incurred in the individual             
          years in issue (not in prior years).                                        
          4In 1995, petitioners claimed deductions of $3,301 in                       
          “travel expenses” and $3,489 in “other expenses”.  The latter               
          were capitalized travel expenses from prior years.  See supra               
          note 3.  Respondent classified all these expenses as “travel                
          expenses” in the notice of deficiency.  We follow this                      
          classification.                                                             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011