- 5 -
the 1999 return consisted solely of wages earned by petitioner in
the amount of $23,964. Petitioner claimed a moving expense
deduction in the amount of $8,298 on the 1999 return.
Petitioner’s moving expense deduction included the cost of moving
the household goods and personal effects from New York City to
Berkeley, the cost of moving household goods from Zurich to
Saigans, the cost of petitioner’s travel from Zurich to San
Francisco, the cost of Mrs. Bartsch’s travel from Zurich to San
Francisco, the costs of storage in both Saigans and Berkeley, and
the cost or value of the contents of the box lost by the moving
company.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent allowed petitioners
a moving expense deduction of $955. Respondent contends that
petitioners are not entitled to a moving expense deduction in any
amount greater than that allowed by respondent.
Discussion
In general, the determinations of the Commissioner in a
notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the burden is on
the taxpayer to show that the determinations are incorrect. See
Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84
(1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).4
4 Sec. 7491 does not apply in this case to shift the burden
of proof to respondent if for no other reason than that
petitioner failed to establish that he fully complied with the
substantiation requirements of sec. 7491(a)(2)(A).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011