Dennis E. Runkle and Debra A. Runkle - Page 36

                                       - 36 -                                         
          income and expense records he had.  In addition, Mr. Runkle’s               
          actual gross receipts for the years at issue may have been                  
          greater than the amounts respondent determined.  Mr. Runkle                 
          admitted at trial that he had no idea whether respondent                    
          identified all of Mr. Runkle’s income because Mr. Runkle failed             
          to keep records.  Therefore, we are not obliged to speculate as             
          to the amount of his expenses.  Buelow v. Commissioner, 970 F.2d            
          412 (7th Cir. 1992), affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-219; Lerch v.                    
          Commissioner, 877 F.2d 624, 628 (7th Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo.           
          1987-295; Pfluger v. Commissioner, 840 F.2d 1379 (7th Cir. 1988)            
          (a taxpayer who will pay more tax than if he or she had been more           
          forthright should not cause a court to bend the law in the                  
          taxpayer’s favor), affg. T.C. Memo. 1986-78; Norgaard v.                    
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-390 (Cohan rule not applicable to             
          estimate gambling losses where taxpayer failed to establish                 
          actual gambling gross receipts), affd. on this issue and revd. in           
          part 939 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1991).                                          
               Mr. Runkle presented no evidence to support his claim to               
          additional expense deductions.  Instead, he vaguely referred to             
          an industry average, the basis for which is not in evidence.  Mr.           
          Runkle introduced no credible evidence to substantiate any                  
          expenses, let alone expenses in excess of the amount respondent             
          allowed in the deficiency notice.  Accordingly, based on the                
          record as a whole, we hold that Mr. Runkle is not entitled to               

Page:  Previous  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011