James Brian Medis - Page 5

                                        - 4 -                                         
          reported by petitioner on the amended return) and that petitioner           
          was liable for an AMT of $4,802 for the 2000 taxable year.                  
          Respondent also determined that petitioner was not entitled to              
          the additional itemized deductions claimed on the amended return            
          and made a downward adjustment of $243 to the total itemized                
          deductions claimed for that taxable year.                                   
                                     Discussion                                       
               The Commissioner’s determination is presumed correct, and              
          generally, a taxpayer bears the burden of proving otherwise.                
          Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).                  
          Moreover, deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the             
          taxpayer bears the burden of proving entitlement to any deduction           
          claimed.  New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440              
          (1934); Welch v. Helvering, supra at 115.  This includes the                
          burden of substantiation.  Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87,            
          90 (1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976).                   
               The burden as to a factual issue relevant to the liability             
          for tax may shift to the Commissioner if the taxpayer introduces            
          credible evidence and satisfies the requirements under section              
          7491(a)(2) to substantiate items, maintain required records, and            
          fully cooperate with respondent’s reasonable requests.  Sec.                
          7491(a).  In the present case, the burden of proof remains on               
          petitioner because he has neither taken a position as to whether            
          the burden of proof should be placed on respondent nor                      






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011