-9-
exemption applies. See Hoptowit v. Commissioner, supra at 145-
148; Jourdain v. Commissioner, supra. Moreover, petitioner has
introduced no evidence to prove this adjustment was appropriate.
Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s disallowance of this
adjustment.
IV. Additional Deductions
Petitioner claims on brief, despite not having any documents
to substantiate his expenses, that he is entitled to certain
deductions beyond those he originally reported on his returns for
the years at issue. For example, petitioner claims he lives in
an empowerment zone and/or an enterprise community and is
therefore entitled to additional or increased deductions, such as
increased depreciation deductions. Petitioner also claims that
he is entitled to deduct certain expenses, such as depreciation,
insurance, mileage on his car, house expenses, office expenses,
and miscellaneous expenses for items such as clothing and
cleaning, and personal deductions. We are thus asked to decide
whether petitioner is entitled to deductions in excess of those
reported on his returns.
We begin with two fundamental principles of tax litigation.
First, as a general rule, the Commissioner’s determinations are
presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving
that these determinations are erroneous.7 Rule 142(a); see
7This principle is not affected by sec. 7491(a), because, as
described previously, petitioner failed to substantiate claimed
expenses and failed to maintain required records. See sec.
7491(a)(2)(A) and (B). Accordingly, the burden of proof remains
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011