Michael W. Allen - Page 11

          inexactitude is of his or her own making.  Cohan v. Commissioner,           
          39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930).  For the Cohan rule to                 
          apply, however, a basis must exist on which this Court can make             
          an approximation.  Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 742-743            
          (1985).  Without such a basis, any allowance would amount to                
          unguided largesse.  Williams v. United States, 245 F.2d 559, 560            
          (5th Cir. 1957).                                                            
               Certain business expenses may not be estimated because of              
          the strict substantiation requirements of section 274(d).  See              
          sec. 280F(d)(4)(A); Sanford v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 827               
          (1968), affd. per curiam 412 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1969).  For such             
          expenses, only documentary evidence will suffice.                           
               We now address whether petitioner is allowed to deduct any             
          amounts beyond those he reported on his returns.  We find that he           
          may not.  Petitioner has not introduced evidence to substantiate            
          the additional deductions he claims.  He has simply stated in his           
          brief that he is entitled to these deductions.  Statements in               
          briefs and exhibits attached to briefs are not evidence.8  See              
          Rule 143(b); Shepherd v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 376, 399 n.22               
          (2000), affd. 283 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2002).  As petitioner has            
          introduced no evidence regarding these claimed deductions, we               
          cannot estimate the amounts of the deductions under the Cohan               
          rule.  See Cohan v. Commissioner, supra.  Accordingly, petitioner           

               8In his reply brief, petitioner also requests additional               
          time to supply information regarding the lease of equipment.                
          Evidence pertaining to petitioner’s claims should have been                 
          introduced at trial.  See Rule 143.  Petitioner may not introduce           
          any further evidence.  See id.                                              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011