- 7 -
unprocessed amended return consisted of the types of expenses
contemplated by section 162(a). Nevertheless, except for her
employment with the City of New York, we cannot tell with any
degree of certainty whether petitioner was otherwise employed
during the year in issue. Furthermore, to the extent she was,
with the possible exception of the deduction for “commissions and
fees”, petitioner has failed to substantiate any of the
deductions claimed on the Schedule C. Petitioner is not entitled
to any of the deductions claimed on the Schedule C included with
the unprocessed amended return.
3. Respondent’s Claim for an Increased Deficiency
At trial, respondent requested leave to claim an increased
deficiency based upon the income reported on the Schedule C
included with the unprocessed amended return. Ignoring various
technical and procedural infirmities surrounding respondent’s
request, we note that respondent has been in possession of the
unprocessed amended return since April 2001. As best can be
determined from the record, that return has been treated, more or
less, as a nullity from the date of receipt until the date of
trial. We see no reason to change its status at this point in
the proceeding. Respondent’s request to claim an increased
deficiency is denied.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011