- 12 -
interest. This is particularly troublesome because these are the
type of records that would be readily available to petitioner,
and petitioner’s failure to provide these records leads to the
inference that they would not be favorable to petitioner’s case.
Additionally, we are bothered by the fact that the loan was
secured by a mortgage on his parents’ residence. Finally, given
petitioner’s expenses at Columbia, it is unclear from what source
of funds petitioner made any interest payments. The inferences
suggest that petitioner may not have incurred or been legally
responsible for the loan. Accordingly, we find that petitioner
did not meet his burden of proof3 and is not entitled to an
education loan interest deduction under section 221.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
3 Sec. 7491(a)(1) provides that the burden of proof shall
be on respondent in certain situations. This provision does not
apply if the taxpayer has not maintained required records. Sec.
7491(a)(2). In the circumstances here, at a minimum, a taxpayer
claiming an interest expense would be required to maintain the
basic debt instrument.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: May 25, 2011