- 5 -
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Moreover, deductions are a
matter of legislative grace, and petitioners bear the burden of
proving entitlement to any deduction claimed. INDOPCO, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992). Petitioners were required
to maintain records sufficient to establish the amount of any
deduction claimed. Sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.
Claimed Property Expenditures
It is petitioners’ position3 that they are entitled to
deduct for each of the years at issue the entire amount of the
expenditures that they made during each such year for certain
work done on the 40th Street property and the 8th Street prop-
erty. In support of that position, Ms. Gay testified:
we have two properties that were totally destroyed by
renters. My husband went ahead, had to hire someone to
do the repair work because he can’t do it anymore.
He came up with the totals of what it costs, the
labor and the material, et cetera, and this was the
numbers that he came up with and put it on his income
tax.
Later, we are audited and they say, No, we have to
-- I think the term is disallowed. There’s a certain
amount that the government wants, I guess, you have to
amortize over a period of so many years.
2(...continued)
respondent under sec. 7491(a). In any event, petitioners have
failed to establish that they satisfy the requirements of sec.
7491(a)(2). On the record before us, we find that the burden of
proof does not shift to respondent under sec. 7491(a).
3Although the Court ordered petitioners to file a posttrial
brief, they failed to do so.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007