- 16 -
taxpayer bears the “burden of proving the amount of deductible
expenses since deductions are a matter of statutory privilege
and must be shown by substantial evidence”), affg. T.C. Memo.
1956-72.
Viewing the factual inferences in the light most favorable
to the nonmoving party, as we must on a motion for summary
judgment, we do not find that a genuine issue of material fact
exists as to the business expense deductions. See Craig v.
Commissioner, 119 T.C. at 260; Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.
at 821; Jacklin v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. at 344. Petitioner
claims $1,799 in additional trade or business expense deductions
that he did not include on his 1998 individual tax return. In
response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment, petitioner
merely asserts that he is entitled to the deductions as trade or
business expenses and states that he has provided respondent with
evidence of those expenses.6 The party opposing summary judgment
must set forth specific facts which show that a genuine question
of material fact exists and may not rely merely on allegations or
denials in the pleadings. Grant Creek Water Works, Ltd. v.
Commissioner, supra at 325; Casanova Co. v. Commissioner, supra
6 Petitioner claims that copies of certain checks in
respondent’s files substantiate these expenses. As respondent
points out, these checks total $3,790.29, and petitioner is
claiming only $1,799 as deductible trade or business expenses.
Moreover, these checks are not self-explanatory as to the nature
of the expenses claimed.
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