Darryl F. Royster - Page 27




                                       - 26 -                                         
               Petitioner argues that he should be allowed to deduct                  
          certain expenses to which section 274(d) applies because the                
          records he produced at trial satisfy the substantiation                     
          requirements of section 1.274-5T(c)(5), Temporary Income Tax                
          Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46022 (Nov. 6, 1985), which allow a taxpayer            
          to reconstruct reasonably his business expenses when original               
          documents are lost or destroyed through no fault of the taxpayer.           
               Respondent argues that petitioner failed to present credible           
          evidence to substantiate that he incurred business expenses and             
          that petitioner has not provided the Court with a sufficient                
          basis on which to make a Cohan estimation.  Respondent also                 
          argues that petitioner has not met the heightened substantiation            
          requirements imposed by section 274(d) for those deductions to              
          which section 274(d) applies.                                               
               At trial, petitioner produced the following: photocopies of            
          checks drafted on the RBS account for 2000, 2001, and 2002; a               
          copy of a rental receipt for Western Springs Rec Center for 2001;           
          an itemized hotel receipt dated May 28, 2000, in the amount of              
          $1,654.86; itemized hotel receipts dated July 31, 2002, in the              
          aggregate amount of $2,215.18; an itemized American Express bill;           
          and, an itemized cellular phone bill.                                       
               Upon review of the canceled checks provided by petitioner,             
          it is impossible to determine whether the checks were written for           
          petitioner’s personal expenses.  We find petitioner’s testimony             







Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007