Ivan G. and Rosemary J. Snorek - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         
          The $10,355 deduction was attributable to the claimed eligible              
          medical expenses submitted to the plan.                                     
          Respondent sent petitioners a deficiency notice.  Respondent                
          determined that petitioners were not allowed to deduct the $3,906           
          claimed employee benefit plan expenses attributable to the health           
          insurance premiums for Mrs. Snorek.  Respondent determined that             
          60 percent of $3,906 was deductible under section 162(l).                   
          Petitioners timely filed a petition.                                        
                                     Discussion                                       
               We are asked to decide whether petitioners can deduct the              
          health insurance premiums for Mrs. Snorek and, if so, to what               
          extent.  This is an unusual substantiation case because the                 
          parties agree that the health insurance premiums for Mrs. Snorek            
          were paid; they disagree as to who paid the premiums.                       
               We look to the general rule that deductions are a matter of            
          legislative grace, and the taxpayer must show that he or she is             
          entitled to any deduction claimed.  Rule 142(a); Deputy v. du               
          Pont, 308 U.S. 488, 493 (1940).  This includes the burden of                
          substantiation.  Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 89-90                
          (1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976).                      
          Petitioners do not assert that the burden shifts to respondent              
          under section 7491(a).  Therefore the burden of proof remains               
          with petitioner.                                                            







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011