- 7 -
Because petitioner has failed to file a brief, the nature of
his arguments is not entirely clear. In any event, no evidence
has been admitted that would tend to support any of the claimed
business expense deductions that were not conceded by respondent.
To make matters worse, petitioner’s testimony was plagued by
memory lapses and confessions of error with respect to some of
his claimed deductions. The Court therefore concludes that
petitioner has failed to demonstrate entitlement to deductions
for any business expenses in excess of those conceded by
respondent.
III. Deduction for State Tax Payments
State income taxes paid or accrued during the taxable year
are generally deductible. See sec. 164(a)(3). At trial,
petitioner asserted tersely that he made five payments of $310 to
the California Franchise Tax Board in 2000. Aside from that
assertion, there is no evidence of record to demonstrate that
petitioner actually made those payments on behalf of his
business. Because petitioner has failed to properly substantiate
the claimed State tax payments, he has not demonstrated
entitlement to a deduction for State tax payments with respect to
his 2000 taxable year.
IV. Deduction for Alimony or Separate Maintenance Payments
Payments incident to a divorce that are characterized as
alimony or separate maintenance are deductible by the payor.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008