- 3 -
California (condo), which was disallowed by respondent in the
statutory notice of deficiency.
Petitioner also reported, on Schedule A, employee business
expenses and other miscellaneous itemized deductions of $33,881.
Petitioner claims that he is entitled to deduct $32,938 of that
amount, after taking into account the 2-percent floor of section
67. In the statutory notice of deficiency, respondent allowed
$12,014.43 of the reported deductions. Respondent determined
that the balance of $21,866.57 represented travel, meals, and
lodging that petitioner incurred while away from home.
Respondent disallowed this amount on the grounds that petitioner
did not have a tax home in 2000.
Discussion
The Commissioner’s determinations are presumed correct, and
generally taxpayers bear the burden of proving otherwise.1 Rule
142(a)(1); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Tax deductions are a matter of legislative grace with the
taxpayer bearing the burden of proving entitlement to the
deductions claimed. Rule 142(a)(1); INDOPCO, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992).
1Petitioner has not raised the issue of sec. 7491(a), which
shifts the burden of proof to the Commissioner in certain
situations. This Court concludes that sec. 7491 does not apply
because petitioner has not produced any evidence that establishes
the preconditions for its application.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011