- 21 -
expenses”; “Petitioners have presented no evidence that any of
their claimed deductions on their 1996 Schedule C were ever paid
or incurred”; “Petitioners have presented no evidence that any of
their claimed deductions on their 1996 Schedule C were paid or
incurred in taxable year 1996”; “Petitioners have presented no
evidence that their claimed deductions on their 1996 Schedule C
were other than personal expenses”. An identical series of
statements was enumerated with respect to 1997.
Petitioners deny the foregoing requested admissions in their
response and explain that “Petitioners’ denial is based on the
fact that their Income Tax Returns for both years were signed
under penalty of perjury. This constitutes evidence of the
deductibility of the expenses claimed.” They do not further
address these deductions in their opposition to respondent’s
motion for summary judgment, and they have at no time stated that
they possess and will present to respondent and/or the Court
documentary or other supporting evidence with respect to the
claimed expenditures.
Contrary to petitioners’ suggestion, it is axiomatic that
neither tax returns themselves, nor the execution of such forms
under penalty of perjury, establishes the truth of items recited
therein. Lawinger v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 428, 438 (1994);
Wilkinson v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 633, 639 (1979); Roberts v.
Commissioner, 62 T.C. 834, 837 (1974). Because petitioners have
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