-9-
Petitioner introduced two promissory notes, Exhibits 15-P
and 16-P, to substantiate the professional fees deducted on In
Touch’s 2000 return and in support of his contention that the
fees in question were properly accrued and deducted in 2000.
However, petitioner did not introduce any evidence to describe
the dates, nature, and amount of the services allegedly provided
by the obligees of the promissory notes.
Petitioner introduced three promissory notes, Exhibits 17-P,
18-P, and 19-P, to substantiate alleged additional capital
contributions and at-risk amounts by three of In Touch’s members:
petitioner, Lloyd Gilbert, and James Coates. The total principal
amount of the three notes coincides precisely with the three
members’ distributive shares of the net loss claimed by In Touch
on its 2000 return. Petitioner testified that he executed his
note on December 31, 2000, as a guaranty of In Touch’s
obligations to the consultants and professionals to whom In Touch
allegedly owed payment as of December 31, 2000. However,
petitioner did not introduce any evidence regarding the purpose
of the Gilbert and Coates promissory notes.
OPINION
I. Burden of Proof
The Commissioner’s determinations are generally presumed to
be correct, and the taxpayer must prove by a preponderance of
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007