Harry J. Sullivan - Page 4




                                        - 4 -                                         
          T.C. 87, 89-90 (1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir.              
          1976).1                                                                     
               Taxpayers are required to maintain records that are                    
          sufficient to enable the Commissioner to determine the correct              
          tax liability.  See sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.           
          Failure to prove the exact amount of an otherwise deductible item           
          may not always be fatal, because generally, unless precluded by             
          section 274, we may estimate the amount of such an expense and              
          allow the deduction to that extent.  Finley v. Commissioner, 255            
          F.2d 128, 133 (10th Cir. 1958), affg. 27 T.C. 413 (1956); Cohan             
          v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 544 (2d Cir. 1930).  In order for             
          the Court to estimate the amount of an expense, however, there              
          must be some basis upon which an estimate may be made.  Vanicek             
          v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 742-743 (1985).  Without such a               
          basis, an allowance would amount to unguided largesse.  Williams            
          v. United States, 245 F.2d 559, 560 (5th Cir. 1957).                        
               Section 274(d) provides, however, that no deduction shall be           
          allowed with respect to any "listed property", as defined in                
          section 280F(d)(4), unless the taxpayer substantiates by adequate           
          records or sufficient evidence to corroborate the taxpayer's own            
          testimony:  (1) The amount of the expenditure or use based on the           


               1Petitioner has made no argument that the burden of proof              
          shifting provisions of sec. 7491 apply to this case, nor has he             
          offered any evidence that he has complied with the requirements             
          of sec. 7491(a)(2).                                                         






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011