- 4 -
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 petitioners a notice of deficiency
(notice) for their taxable year 2002. In that notice, respon-
dent, inter alia, disallowed $33,415.432 and allowed $2,142.57 of
the total $35,558 of job expenses that petitioners claimed in the
2002 Schedule A prior to the reduction required by section 67(a).
Of the $2,142.57 allowed in the notice, $1,865.39 was for union
dues and $277.18 was for tool expenses. In the notice, respon-
dent reduced the $2,142.57 that respondent allowed by two percent
of petitioners’ adjusted gross income (i.e., by $1,946) and
permitted petitioners to deduct the balance (i.e., $196.57) as
job expenses.
Discussion
Petitioners bear the burden of proving that the determina-
tions in the notice are erroneous.3 Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Moreover, deductions are a
matter of legislative grace, and petitioners bear the burden of
2In the notice, respondent rounded to the nearest dollar the
dollar amount of the disallowed job expense deduction.
3Petitioners do not claim that the burden of proof shifts to
respondent under sec. 7491(a). In any event, petitioners have
failed to establish that they satisfy 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 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011