Augusto & Maria Negret - Page 7
- 6 -
In general, the Commissioner’s determinations as to matters
of fact in the notice of deficiency are presumed to be correct,
and the taxpayers have the burden of proving otherwise. See Rule
142(a);5 Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Petitioners have not contended that section 7491 applies so as to
shift the burden of proof; on the record in the instant case, if
such a contention had been made, then we would have concluded
that the requirements of section 7491(a)(2) had not been met, and
so the burden of proof would not have been shifted.
For convenience, we consider first the vehicle insurance
issue and then the depreciation issue.
A. Vehicle Insurance
Section 274(d)(4) provides that no deduction shall be
allowed with respect to listed property (as defined in section
280F(d)(4)) unless certain substantiation requirements are met.
As best we can tell from the meager record, the vehicle Maria
used in her Avon business was a passenger automobile, within the
meaning of paragraphs (4)(A)(i) and (5) of section 280F(d).
Section 1.274-5(j)(2), Income Tax Regs., authorizes the
Commissioner to “establish a method under which a taxpayer may
use mileage rates to determine the amount of the ordinary and
necessary expenses of using a vehicle for local transportation *
5 Unless indicated otherwise, all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: March 27, 2008