-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