- 12 -
considered Mr. Wasik to be away from Milwaukee during that time
and reimbursed Mr. Wasik’s meals and lodging for that reason. It
appears under the circumstances that respondent has conceded that
Mr. Wasik was temporarily away from home with respect to the 2-
week training session in Duluth. We shall discuss, therefore,
infra whether petitioners met the strict substantiation
requirements under section 274(d) concerning the vehicle expenses
incurred traveling to Duluth for training.
Substantiation of Expenses
We next turn to the substantiation issues to determine
whether petitioners are entitled to deduct any remaining
expenses. We begin by noting the fundamental principle that the
Commissioner’s determinations are generally presumed correct, and
the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that these
determinations are erroneous.5 Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290
U.S. 111 (1933). Moreover, deductions are a matter of
legislative grace, and the taxpayer has the burden to prove he or
she is entitled to any deduction claimed. Rule 142(a); Deputy v.
du Pont, 308 U.S. 488, 493 (1940); New Colonial Ice Co. v.
Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934); Welch v. Helvering, supra.
5Petitioners do not claim the burden of proof shifts to
respondent under sec. 7491(a). Petitioners also did not
establish they satisfy the requirements of sec. 7491(a)(2). We
therefore find that the burden of proof remains with petitioners.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007