- 13 -
the requirements set forth in the ADA during 2001. See Arevalo
v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. at 255-256. Therefore, petitioners are
not entitled to claim the disabled access credit under section 44
for their investment in the pay phones in 2001. See id. at 257-
258.
IV. Expense Deduction
Respondent contends that petitioners were not entitled to
the $14,000 expense deduction under section 162(a) in 2002
because they failed to establish that they paid or incurred any
expenses with respect to a pay phone trade or business in 2002.
Under section 162(a), a taxpayer may deduct ordinary and
necessary business expenses incurred or paid during the taxable
year. The taxpayer is required to maintain records sufficient to
enable the Commissioner to determine his correct tax liability.
See sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs. The taxpayer
has the burden to prove the Commissioner’s determination was
incorrect. Rule 142(a).
Petitioners produced no evidence to indicate that they paid
or incurred $14,000 of business expenses with respect to their
pay phone business in 2002. On this record, the Court finds that
petitioners are not entitled to deduct the $14,000 as a business
expense under section 162(a) in 2002.
Petitioners also testified that the $14,000 was not an
expense deduction but a depreciation deduction and they should
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008