- 4 -
income reported in petitioner’s 2002 return, petitioner deducted
the balance (i.e., $12,293), as well as the other itemized
deductions claimed in the 2002 Schedule A that were not subject
to the two-percent floor imposed by section 67(a).
Respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency
(notice) for his taxable year 2002. In that notice, respondent
disallowed the total $12,293 of “Job Expenses and Most Other
Miscellaneous Deductions” that petitioner claimed in the 2002
Schedule A after the reduction required by section 67(a).
Discussion
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that the determina-
tions in the notice are erroneous.2 Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933). Moreover, deductions are a
matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of
proving entitlement to any deduction claimed. INDOPCO, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992). A taxpayer is required to
maintain records sufficient to establish the amount of any
deduction claimed. Sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner claims that, prior to the application of the two-
percent floor imposed by section 67(a), he is entitled to deduc-
tions for $8,782 of automobile expenses, $3,952 of meal
2Petitioner does not claim that the burden of proof shifts
to respondent under sec. 7491(a). In any event, petitioner has
failed to establish that he satisfies the requirements of sec.
7491(a)(2). On the record before us, we find that the burden of
proof does not shift to respondent under sec. 7491(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011