Samuel S. and Laura M. Pinkney - Page 6

                                        - 5 -                                         
          preparation expense, and professional business expense.                     
          Respondent initially allowed $4,306.17 of that amount and later             
          conceded an additional $314.94, leaving $24,510.89 in dispute.              
               At trial, petitioners introduced:  (1) A receipt for $447              
          related to Getotis.com; (2) receipts totaling $888.75 from Pre-             
          Paid Legal Services, Inc.; (3) a Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous              
          Income, indicating that petitioner paid his son, Roderick, $5,460           
          of nonemployee compensation;2 (4) receipt stubs and checks drawn            
          on petitioner’s account to Roderick; and (5) a Form 1096, Annual            
          Summary and Transmittal of U.S. Information Returns, used to                
          transmit the Form 1099-MISC to the Internal Revenue Service.                
               With respect to the receipt for $447, it is not clear from             
          the document what type of expense this represents or how                    
          Getotis.com relates to the real estate consulting business.                 
          Petitioners offered no testimony on this matter, and, therefore,            
          they have failed to prove the $447 is an ordinary and necessary             
          business expense.                                                           
               With respect to the receipts for $888.75 from Pre-Paid Legal           
          Services, Inc., legal fees generally are deductible if they are             
          sufficiently connected with the taxpayer’s trade or business.               
          See, e.g., Kenton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-13.                      

               2 Petitioners did not report any amount as wage expense on             
          their Schedule C.  It appears that petitioners instead reported             
          the alleged payments to their son as a component of other                   
          expenses.                                                                   






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011