- 14 - trade or business requires an examination of the facts and circumstances of each case. Higgins v. Commissioner, 312 U.S. 212, 217 (1941); see also Commissioner v. Groetzinger, supra at 36. Respondent contends that petitioners were not in a trade or business within the meaning of section 162. Petitioners contend that they were in a trade or business entitled “Membership Sales and Prepaid Legal Services”. However, petitioners offered no evidence other than the Schedule C and self-serving testimony regarding their business. A tax return is merely a statement of a taxpayer’s position and is not evidence of the correctness of the figures and information contained therein. Wilkinson v. Commissioner, 71 T.C. 633, 639 (1979). Moreover, the Court is not required to accept petitioners’ unsubstantiated testimony. See Wood v. Commissioner, 338 F.2d 602, 605 (9th Cir. 1964), affg. 41 T.C. 593 (1964). As petitioners reported no gross receipts on the Schedule C other than the bartering income and offered no documentary evidence whatsoever of the conduct of a business, we conclude that petitioners did not use the program in a trade or business, and petitioners are not entitled to a section 162 deduction for their subscription to the program.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011