Pieter Weyts - Page 12




                                       - 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