- 14 -
is his 1987 return (the 1987 Form 1040),7 which indicates that
the property was not subject to a mortgage during that year; and,
although petitioner’s classification of the alleged $10,430
payment as “deductible points” may indicate that the property was
mortgaged in 1988, petitioner has failed to offer any evidence,
in the form of closing documents, canceled checks, etc., of the
mortgage or of the payment of “points” during 1988. Moreover,
petitioner has failed to provide even the minimal substantiation
of the payment of either points or real estate taxes that would
permit us to estimate allowable deductions as permitted under
Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930). Even
under Cohan, there must be sufficient evidence in the record to
provide a basis upon which an estimate may be made. Vanicek v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 742-743 (1985). Here, there is none.
Cf. Estate of Dickerson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-165
(taxpayer’s Schedule A deduction for mortgage interest sustained
on the basis of Cohan). Therefore, we reject petitioner’s claim,
raised at trial, to Schedule A itemized deductions.
7 We have received into evidence a copy of the 1987 Form
1040. That document is not signed by petitioner, but it is
signed by a return preparer (petitioner’s attorney) under what
appears to be a date of Aug. 2, 1990. It carries the annotation
“client copy”. We shall use that document for limited purposes,
as described below. We make no finding that the original of that
document was ever filed by petitioner.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011