Otu and Carol Obot - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         
          receipts and implausible testimony.  We must inventory his claims           
          and shelve those that are unsupported.1                                     
                                     Background                                       
               During 1999, Otu Obot owned a small grocery store, and a               
          house in a marginal Buffalo neighborhood that he rented out.  All           
          the contested deductions flow from this grocery store and that              
          rental property.  His wife Carol was a senior corrections                   
          counselor working for New York State, and she neither testified             
          nor was involved in the case in any way except for signing the              
          return and petition.  The case was tried in Buffalo, and both               
          Obots were New York residents when they filed their petition.               
               The Obots itemized deductions on their 1999 return, using              
          Schedule A.  They also reported losses from both the grocery                
          store and the rental property on Schedules C and E.  The IRS                
          audited their return and disallowed many of their deductions:               
                         Taken         Allowed       Disputed2                        
               Schedule A   $17,567        $10,174        $ 7,393                     
               Schedule C    17,096          3,023         14,073                     
               Schedule E   11,025         2,319          8,706                       
               Total       45,688         15,516       30,172                         




               1 Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in               
          effect during 1999, and Rule references are to the Tax Court                
          Rules of Practice and Procedure.                                            
               2 The amount shown as disputed from Schedule A includes                
          $2,174 in computational errors that are not at issue in this                
          case.                                                                       




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011