- 15 -
petitioner argues: “The partnership received deposits. To have
income the tests established by the Courts, the Internal Revenue
Code and the regulations must be met. As is detailed in
Petitioner’s memorandum those tests were not met.”
Petitioner’s burden on summary judgment is to set forth
specific facts which show that a genuine question of material
fact exists. See Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd. v. Commissioner,
91 T.C. at 325; Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. at 217.
Petitioner does not dispute the facts pertinent to the
calculation of his distributive share of the partnership’s income
for the year in issue. Rather, petitioner argues that the
deposits to the partnership’s account for that year are not
income to him as a matter of law. As we discussed above, a
partner must include his distributive share of partnership income
whether or not it is distributed to him. Accordingly, we
conclude that respondent is entitled to summary judgment on the
issue of the calculation of petitioner’s distributive share.
3. Whether Petitioner May Deduct Certain Business Expenses
Deductions are a matter of legislative grace. INDOPCO, Inc.
v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992). The taxpayer bears the
burden of proving he is entitled to deductions and must present
adequate documentation to support any deductions claimed. Welch
v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933); see also Nowland v.
Commissioner, 244 F.2d 450, 453 (4th Cir. 1957) (holding the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011