- 13 -
Mr. Farnsworth also claimed that the retention amounts
included interest (at a rate he does not recall), which he
deducted. Presumably, Mr. Farnsworth’s basis would be less than
the $67,320 or $49,170 if some portion of the monthly retention
amounts included interest that he deducted. Mr. Farnsworth’s
testimony showed that he did not clearly recollect the facts, and
that the amount claimed as “basis” was, at best, a very rough
estimate.
Petitioners offered no reliable evidence upon which the
Court could determine the actual retention amounts withheld by
Farmers. Mr. Farnsworth has asserted that the terms of the
addenda were not followed, but he has failed to provide any
credible evidence of the amounts actually retained by Farmers.
Petitioners have thus failed to meet their burden of establishing
the retention amounts with credible evidence.
While we should not disallow entirely all amounts because
only some amounts have been proven, see Cohan v. Commissioner, 39
F.2d 540, 543 (2d Cir. 1930), “the basic requirement is that
there be sufficient evidence to satisfy the trier that at least
the amount allowed in the estimate was in fact spent or incurred
for the stated purpose. Until the trier has that assurance from
the record, relief to the taxpayer would be unguided largesse.”
See Williams v. United States, 245 F.2d 559, 560 (5th Cir. 1957).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011