- 5 -
amount shown on petitioner’s reconstructed entertainment list was
$763. Petitioner failed to explain the discrepancy between the
$763 shown on the reconstructed entertainment list and the $2,422
he had claimed. Nor could petitioner explain multiple
discrepancies between the master credit card summary and his
reconstructed entertainment list.
Respondent disallowed the claimed expenses in a notice of
deficiency dated May 22, 2003, stating that petitioner had failed
to provide supporting information required to substantiate the
claimed expenses. Petitioners timely filed a petition for a
redetermination with this Court.
OPINION
This is a substantiation case in which we are asked to
decide whether petitioner may deduct automobile expenses and
certain entertainment expenses he incurred in 2000 as a sales
representative. We explain the deductibility rules and then
apply these rules to the facts. We begin with who has the burden
of proof.
Burden of Proof
Generally, the determinations of the Commissioner in a
deficiency notice are presumed correct, and the taxpayer has the
burden of proving the Commissioner’s determinations to be in
error. Rule 142(a)(1); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115
(1933). The burden of proof may shift to the Commissioner in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011