Ibrahim Keita - Page 4

                                        - 3 -                                         
          petitioner a notice of deficiency in February 2006 disallowing              
          $11,802 of petitioner’s claimed Schedule C deductions, consisting           
          of $7,853 for business use of petitioner’s home, and $3,949 in              
          other expenses for computers, monitors, and a fax machine.  The             
          notice of deficiency also disallowed $19,897 of petitioner’s                
          itemized deductions, consisting of $9,384 in unreimbursed                   
          employee vehicle expenses, and $11,375 in attorney’s and tax                
          preparation fees, reduced by 2 percent of petitioner’s adjusted             
          gross income.                                                               
               In general, the Commissioner’s determinations set forth in a           
          notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears           
          the burden of proving that these determinations are in error.               
          Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).                  
          Pursuant to section 7491(a), the burden of proof as to factual              
          matters shifts to the Commissioner under certain circumstances.             
          Petitioner has neither alleged that section 7491(a) applies nor             
          established his compliance with the requirements of section                 
          7491(a)(2)(A) and (B) to substantiate items, maintain records,              
          and cooperate fully with respondent’s reasonable requests.                  
          Petitioner therefore bears the burden of proof.                             
               Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the                  
          taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to any             
          deduction claimed.  INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79,             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007