Oscar R. Contreras - Page 22

                                       - 22 -                                         
          burden of showing that he was involved in his claimed PDA con-              
          sulting business with continuity and regularity and that the                
          primary purpose for the activities that he undertook with respect           
          to that claimed business was for profit.  On that record, we find           
          that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of showing that              
          during the year at issue he was carrying on a PDA consulting                
          business within the meaning of section 162(a).15                            
               On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed            
          to carry his burden of establishing that he is entitled for his             
          taxable year 2001 to the net loss that he claimed in the PDA                
          consulting Schedule C.16                                                    




               15Assuming arguendo that petitioner had established that               
          during the year at issue he was carrying on a PDA consulting                
          business within the meaning of sec. 162(a), on the record before            
          us, we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of               
          showing that he paid the expenses that he claimed in the PDA                
          consulting Schedule C and that such expenses are ordinary and               
          necessary expenses within the meaning of that section.                      
               16Assuming arguendo that petitioner had established the                
          deductibility under sec. 162(a) of the expenses claimed in the              
          PDA consulting Schedule C, he would still have to satisfy the               
          requirements of sec. 274(d) for any such expenses that are                  
          subject to those requirements.  We concluded above that we shall            
          not rely on petitioner’s credit card statements, petitioner’s               
          ticket stubs, or petitioner’s testimony with respect to his                 
          claimed expenses to establish petitioner’s position regarding               
          such expenses, including the expenses claimed in the PDA consult-           
          ing Schedule C.  On the record before us, we find that petitioner           
          has failed to carry his burden of establishing all of the ele-              
          ments that he must prove in order to satisfy the requirements               
          under sec. 274(d) for any such expenses that are subject to those           
          requirements.  See sec. 1.274-5T(b)(2), (3), (4), (6), Temporary            
          Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46014-46016 (Nov. 6, 1985).                  




Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011