Emmanuel M. and Blessing N. Nwankwo - Page 16

                                       - 15 -                                         
          carrying on any trade or business”.  Sec. 162(a); Deputy v.                 
          duPont, 308 U.S. 488, 495 (1940).                                           
               Respondent did not challenge the validity of petitioners’              
          claimed Schedule C expenses as ordinary and necessary expenses              
          paid or incurred for Mr. Nwankwo’s trucking business but rather             
          disallowed the expenses on the grounds that petitioners failed to           
          provide substantiation that these expenses were actually paid or            
          incurred in the taxable years, and in the amounts, that they were           
          claimed.                                                                    
               With respect to the legal and professional fees, the record            
          contains evidence of two citations incurred by Mr. Nwankwo in               
          2002 as shown on payroll deduction forms provided by his                    
          employer.  The amounts of these citations were $105 and $1,105,             
          respectively.  However, upon closer scrutiny of this evidence, we           
          find only one of the photocopied receipts provided by petitioner            
          to be legitimate,3 and accordingly, conclude that petitioner is             
          entitled to a deduction of $105.  Petitioner then testified that            
          he incurred attorney’s fees of $400 associated with this                    

          3The two photocopies provided are identical insofar as they                 
          have the same claim accident number, date, and location                     
          information.  They appear to have been written by the same                  
          person.  There are two marked differences between the documents:            
          the document listing an amount of $105 appears to be a photocopy,           
          whereas the document showing $1,105 appears, at least on first              
          blush, to be an original.  However, upon closer inspection, we              
          find that an extra “1” was likely added to the $105 copy and then           
          re-copied, whereupon the “original” $105 copy was either                    
          distressed or re-faxed to give the appearance of two separate               
          receipts.                                                                   




Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011