- 5 -
the entries could not have been made at or near the times of the
expenditures. Respondent also observes that petitioners took the
position on their return that they were entitled to a deduction
based on a per diem rate without the need for substantiation, and
maintenance of a calendar log of actual expenses is inconsistent
with that position. Respondent further commented that the return
had nearly 30 documents attached to it to support petitioners’
claim, but the log was not attached. For the aforesaid reasons,
we do not give the purported log any credence.
Petitioner also referred to the so-called supporting
schedule of expenses attached to the return. This schedule bears
the name of a certified public accountant on each page.
Petitioners’ counsel stated at trial that this was prepared
during the audit. This obviously was not made at or near the
time of any of the expenditures. Moreover, this schedule was
attached to petitioners’ return, which was an exhibit attached to
the parties’ stipulation. This Court has long held that the
return is merely a statement of the petitioners’ claim and does
not establish the facts contained therein. Lamphere v.
Commissioner, 70 T.C. 391, 394 (1978); Roberts v. Commissioner,
62 T.C. 834, 837 (1974); Seaboard Commercial Corp. v.
Commissioner, 28 T.C. 1034, 1051 (1957).
Our review of the record shows there was no record made at
or near the time of any of the expenditures claimed as actual
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011