- 11 -
or where he might go next. It was not foreseeable that he would
be able to return to Minneapolis at any time due to the seniority
system. Thus, we conclude there was no business reason for
petitioners to maintain a home in the Minneapolis area.
Petitioners kept the family residence in the Minneapolis area for
purely personal reasons. Petitioners have failed to prove that
Mr. Bogue had a tax home in 2003. Accordingly, Mr. Bogue was not
away from home in Detroit, Washington, New York, and Milwaukee,
and the expenses he incurred while there are not deductible.
Substantiation of Expenses
We next turn to the substantiation issues to determine
whether petitioners are entitled to deduct any remaining
expenses. We begin by noting the fundamental principle that the
Commissioner’s determinations are generally presumed correct, and
the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that these
determinations are erroneous.4 Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290
U.S. 111 (1933). Moreover, deductions are a matter of
legislative grace, and the taxpayer has the burden to prove he or
she is entitled to any deduction claimed. Rule 142(a); Deputy v.
du Pont, 308 U.S. 488, 493 (1940); New Colonial Ice Co. v.
4Petitioners do not claim the burden of proof shifted to
respondent under sec. 7491(a). Petitioners also did not
establish they satisfy the requirements of sec. 7491(a)(2). We
therefore find that the burden of proof remains with petitioners.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007