Oscar R. Contreras - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          Schedule C and the PDA consulting Schedule C.                               
               Respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency                 
          (notice) for his taxable year 2001.  In that notice, respondent             
          disallowed, inter alia, the $23,318 of job expenses that peti-              
          tioner claimed as a deduction in the 2001 Schedule A after the              
          reduction required by section 67(a), the $2,060 net loss that               
          petitioner claimed in the restaurant Schedule C, and the $15,186            
          net loss that petitioner claimed in the PDA consulting Schedule             
          C.                                                                          
                                       OPINION                                        
               Petitioner bears the burden of proving that the determina-             
          tions in the notice are erroneous.6  Rule 142(a); Welch v.                  
          Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  Moreover, deductions are a            
          matter of legislative grace, and petitioner bears the burden of             
          proving entitlement to any deduction claimed.  INDOPCO, Inc. v.             
          Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992).  Petitioner was required to           
          maintain records sufficient to establish the amount of any                  
          deduction claimed.  Sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.           
               Before turning to the issues presented, we shall summarize             
          certain principles applicable to those issues and evaluate                  
          certain evidence on which petitioner relies.                                



               6Petitioner does not claim that the burden of proof shifts             
          to respondent under sec. 7491(a).  We conclude 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