Darryl F. Royster - Page 9




                                        - 8 -                                         
               Petitioner seeks a redetermination of deficiencies in this             
          case on the grounds that he was engaged in a trade or business              
          with respect to RBS within the meaning of section 183 during the            
          taxable years in issue, and that he possesses the necessary                 
          documentation to substantiate the disallowed business expenses.             
          Petitioner does not raise as issues either the self-employment              
          tax, the unreported income that respondent included in the                  
          determination for taxable year 2000, or the recharacterized                 
          income as reported on his Schedules C for RBS.2                             
                                     Discussion                                       
              Generally, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving the                
          Commissioner’s determinations incorrect.  Rule 142(a)(1); Welch             
          v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  Tax deductions are a               
          matter of legislative grace with the taxpayer bearing the burden            
          of proving entitlement to the deductions claimed.  Rule                     
          142(a)(1); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992).           
               Under section 7491(a), this burden of proof may shift to the           
          Commissioner in certain situations.  Petitioner contends that               
          section 7491(a) requires respondent to bear the burden of proof.            
          We need not decide this issue, however, because our analysis in             



               2 There is nothing in the record to support respondent’s               
          determination recharacterizing the gross income reported on                 
          Schedules C for RBS during the years at issue as reimbursement              
          for expenses from petitioner’s employer, IRS.  The Court is at a            
          loss as to why this adjustment was made.                                    






Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007