- 18 -
receipts, and they did not testify that the receipts in question
were no longer available. Rather, petitioners maintained that
the agent simply and flatly refused to consider any of the
receipts they brought with them to the examination. Petitioners
then produced at trial photocopies of approximately 25 receipts
(some from automotive shops, some from taxable year 2003 and
later, and others, unreadable) that they claimed were reflective
of the receipts contained in the bag presented at the
examination. These documents were received into evidence.
We cannot tell from the record whether any of the
photocopied receipts for taxable year 2002 as provided by
petitioners were a part of the amounts disallowed by respondent.
Irrespective, we are ultimately unpersuaded that the agent at
examination flatly refused to look at any of the documentation
petitioners purportedly provided to her. Moreover, we note that
respondent disallowed the amounts claimed by petitioners based on
a lack of supporting documentation “as of 8-12-04.” Petitioners
concede that they were not in possession of any of their receipts
from 2002 on August 12, 2004. We must therefore conclude that
petitioners have failed to establish that these expenses were, in
fact, paid or incurred in the course of Mr. Nwankwo’s trucking
business in 2002.
With respect to the disallowed deductions for uniforms and
cleaning expenses, Mr. Nwankwo testified that the uniforms and
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011