Robert L. Allum - Page 21

                                        -21-                                          
          income because the nature of his relationship with the                      
          defendants, the nature of his underlying claims, and the                    
          retention of his attorney “for the sole purpose of culminating              
          the settlement agreement” distinguish his case from Commissioner            
          v. Banks, supra; and his relationship with his attorney                     
          constituted a “de facto subchapter K partnership”.13  Respondent            
          contends that Banks is controlling and that the portion of the              
          settlement amount used to pay petitioner’s attorney’s fees must             
          be included in petitioner’s gross income.  Respondent concedes              
          that petitioner may deduct the amount of the attorney’s fees as a           
          miscellaneous itemized deduction subject to the restrictions of             
          sections 67 and 68 and the alternative minimum tax provisions.              
          We agree with respondent.                                                   


               13Petitioner also contends that “If any tax is determined to           
          be due”, the filing fees, discovery fees, and supply costs he               
          allegedly incurred in pursuing his claims against the bank                  
          “should be excluded as costs of producing the taxable income.”              
          We interpret this as petitioner’s argument that the fees and                
          costs are deductible as expenses paid or incurred for the                   
          production of income under sec. 212(1).  Deductions are strictly            
          a matter of legislative grace, and petitioner must show that his            
          deductions are allowed by the Internal Revenue Code.  Rule                  
          142(a); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440                
          (1934).  Petitioner must also keep sufficient records to                    
          substantiate any deductions otherwise allowed by the Internal               
          Revenue Code.  Sec. 6001; see New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering,            
          supra at 440.  Petitioner provided no evidence regarding any of             
          the alleged fees and costs other than his own vague testimony.              
          In the absence of corroborating evidence, we are not required to            
          accept petitioner’s self-serving testimony.  See Tokarski v.                
          Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).  Because petitioner has                
          failed to substantiate the fees and costs, he is not entitled to            
          deduct them.                                                                





Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011