Emmanuel & Cecilia Abloso - Page 8

                                        - 7 -                                         
               According to petitioners, petitioner’s participation in the            
          TRS program constituted a trade or business within the meaning of           
          section 162, and the deductions claimed on the Schedule C should            
          be allowed.  According to respondent, petitioner’s participation            
          in the TRS program did not constitute a trade or business and,              
          with minor exceptions, the expenses shown on the Schedule C are             
          not otherwise deductible.2  For the following reasons, we agree             
          with respondent.                                                            
               Petitioners bear the burden of proving that:  (1)                      
          Petitioner’s participation in the TRS program constituted a trade           
          or business within the meaning of section 162(a) during 2000; (2)           
          the expenses underlying the deductions here in dispute were                 
          ordinary and necessary to that trade or business; and (3) the               
          expenses were paid or incurred.3  Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v.             
          Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v.               
          Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S.           
          111 (1933).                                                                 
               After attending a seminar conducted by Renaissance,                    
          petitioner submitted an application to participate in TRS.  As an           
          active TRS participant, petitioner was required to pay a monthly            


               2  At trial, respondent conceded that the “bonuses” of                 
          $2,914 petitioner received from Renaissance were not includable             
          in petitioners’ income.                                                     
               3  Under the circumstances, the burden of proof remains with           
          petitioners in this case.  See sec. 7491.                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011