- 20 -
basis for excluding all or any part of the lump-sum payment
in this case.
Petitioner argues that the lump-sum payment was made
to reimburse him for "relocation expenses", and petitioner
claims to have incurred relocation expenses "greatly
exceeding" the lump-sum payment. However, petitioner
presented no proof that he incurred any such relocation
expenses. Indeed, in his posttrial brief, petitioner never
identifies the payees of such expenses, nor does he give
the amounts, dates, and purposes of any such payments.
At trial, he suggested, at one point, that his relocation
expenses consisted of cash payments made to his sons and
his former wife ("I gave each son $5,000, I gave her 10,
and $18,000 to move–-"). At another point, petitioner made
reference to "receipts from the moving company" that were
left in the abandoned safe when the undercover investiga-
tion terminated. Petitioner never substantiated any such
payments, such as by obtaining duplicate "receipts" from
the moving company. Thus, even if the lump-sum payment
were excludable from gross income to the extent used to
defray relocation expenses, petitioner has not
substantiated that he paid any such relocation expenses.
To the extent that petitioner claims to be entitled
to deduct some part of the payment as relocation expenses,
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011