- 6 -
petitioners have a deficiency in tax for 1993 of $1,483 and that
they are liable for that year for the addition to tax under
section 6651(a)(1). At trial, petitioners conceded all expenses
claimed in Schedule C for “Fuel” in excess of those conceded by
respondent for 1993.
Petitioners bear the burden of proving error in the determi-
nations for 1993 that remain at issue and their entitlement to
the new matter that they claimed at trial.4 See Rule 142(a);
Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Schedule C Deductions
Deductions are strictly a matter of legislative grace, and
petitioners bear the burden of proving that they are entitled to
any deductions claimed. See INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503
U.S. 79, 84 (1992). At trial, petitioners attempted to satisfy
that burden through Mr. Petty’s testimony and certain documentary
evidence. We found Mr. Petty’s testimony to be general, vague,
conclusory, and/or questionable in certain material respects.
Under these circumstances, we are not required to, and we shall
not, rely on Mr. Petty’s testimony to sustain petitioners’ burden
of proving that they are entitled to any Schedule C deductions in
excess of those conceded by respondent. See Lerch v. Commis-
3(...continued)
when they filed their 1993 joint return.
4Although the Court gave petitioners the opportunity to file
briefs, they chose not to do so.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011