- 7 - sioner, 877 F.2d 624, 631-632 (7th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Geiger v. Commissioner, 440 F.2d 688, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam T.C. Memo. 1969-159; Tokarski v. Commis- sioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). As for the documentary evidence on which petitioners rely, some of that evidence establishes that petitioners paid certain amounts for various expenditures.5 However, we find that that documentary evidence does not show that any of those paid amounts is deductible for 1993. On brief, respondent concedes that during 1993 Mr. Petty operated a truck service Schedule C business. However, respon- dent contends on brief that petitioners have failed to establish their entitlement for 1993 to the claimed Schedule C deductions at issue. Section 162(a) generally allows a deduction for ordinary and necessary expenses paid during the taxable year in carrying on a trade or business. The determination of whether an expenditure 5Not all of the documentary evidence on which petitioners rely establishes that petitioners paid the expenditures to which that evidence relates. For example, petitioners introduced carbon copies of the front, and not the back, of certain checks. By way of further illustration of documentary evidence on which we are unwilling to rely is a check that was endorsed on the back by the payee and immediately thereunder reendorsed by Mr. Petty. Under Mr. Petty’s endorsement appears petitioners’ bank account number. Finally, the documentary evidence proffered by petition- ers included certain invoices which do not indicate that the sales described in such invoices were made to, and paid by, petitioners.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011