- 30 -
deduction disallowance imposed by section 274(n)(1). See sec.
274(n)(2)(B). Section 132(e) generally defines the term “de
minimis fringe” as “any property or service the value of which is
(after taking into account the frequency with which similar
fringes are provided by the employer to the employer’s employees)
so small as to make the accounting for it unreasonable or
administratively impracticable.” See also sec. 1.132-6(a),
Income Tax Regs.
2. Analysis
It is well established that the burden of proof with respect
to deductions claimed on a tax return generally rests on the
taxpayer. The general rule was succinctly stated by this Court
in Roberts v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 834, 836 (1974), as follows:
Taxpayers have no inherent right to deductions; they
are matters of legislative grace. Interstate Transit
Lines v. Commissioner, 319 U.S. 590, 593 (1943); New
Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440
(1934). The taxpayer must be able to point to some
particular statute to justify his deduction and
establish that he comes within its terms. Deputy v.
Dupont, 308 U.S. 488, 493 (1940); White v. United
States, 305 U.S. 281 (1938). * * *
In Roberts, the taxpayer argued that the Commissioner’s
blanket disallowance of his business expense deductions (and a
casualty loss) without benefit of audit was arbitrary and
unreasonable and, therefore, could not form the basis for a
deficiency. In Roberts, we noted that the Commissioner’s failure
to audit the taxpayer’s records was due solely to the latter’s
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011