- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011