- 7 -
Petitioner testified that he was merely an intermediary and
that Richard Nguon (Mr. Nguon), a friend who lived in Cambodia,
owned Liberty Temp. Petitioner further testified that he used
the money received from Unwrapped to pay Liberty Temp’s employees
and to pay himself $200 per week, and that he sent any remaining
money to Mr. Nguon by wire transfer or hand delivery.6
Petitioner did not produce any documents or other evidence
to corroborate his testimony.7 Petitioner asserted that his
failure to produce such evidence was the result of a several-week
trip he took to Cambodia immediately before trial to be with his
dying aunt. Petitioner argued that, had the Court granted his
motion to continue, he could have produced additional evidence or
6 Petitioner does not argue explicitly, if at all, that
money paid to Liberty Temp’s employees and to those who hand-
delivered money to Mr. Nguon is deductible as business expenses.
Under the Cohan rule, if a claimed expense is deductible, but the
taxpayer is unable to fully substantiate the amount, the Court is
permitted to make an approximation of an allowable amount. Cohan
v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930). However,
the taxpayer must provide at least some evidence from which to
estimate a deductible amount. Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.
731, 743 (1985). Other than his unsupported testimony,
petitioner provided no evidence to establish that any expenses
were deductible. Petitioner provided no evidence from which we
may estimate a deductible amount.
7 Petitioner cites the Notice of New Employer
Identification Number Assigned that was mailed to Liberty Temp
and Mr. Nguon on Sept. 23, 1993, as evidence that Mr. Nguon was
the true owner of Liberty Temp during 2002. See supra note 3.
This document does not establish Mr. Nguon’s ownership, nor does
it support any of petitioner’s other claims.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011