- 41 -
Even more fundamentally, the Court would reiterate that the
lack of securities trades attributable to Mr. Arberg preempts the
contention that he was involved in a securities trading business
through the E Trade account. Similarly, the following nebulous
testimony hardly establishes the bona fides and contours of a
consulting business in 2000 or suggests types of expenses that
might have been incurred:
Q When were the services for SI Diamond
completed?
A In the late 1990s.
Q Did there come a time that you performed
services for SI Diamond later?
A Yes, I think I did again. In 2001 or 2002, I
think I did again. Actually, I know I did. So again,
no, 2003, I think it was.
Q Did those services commence in late 2000?
A It’s possible, yes. I mean, I would have to
see a piece of paper to remind me.
In this connection, it is also noteworthy that the Schedule C for
the alleged consulting business incorporated in petitioners’
revised Form 1040 for 2000 reports no gross receipts.
Accordingly, multiple grounds exists for the sustaining of
respondent’s determinations. In general, the collection of
photocopied receipts, etc., is, absent further explanation,
insufficient even to satisfy the threshold section 162
requirement of showing that the amount was paid or incurred in
carrying on a particular trade or business. A fortiori, for the
Page: Previous 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007