- 4 -
Respondent allowed the standard deduction, which was larger than
petitioners’ itemized deductions as adjusted by respondent.
Respondent’s adjustments resulted in a deficiency, and he
determined an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).
At trial, Mr. Schubert submitted into evidence revised Forms
2106-EZ, Unreimbursed Employee Business Expenses, which were
admitted into evidence as petitioners’ new position. The revised
forms reduced Mr. Schubert’s claimed vehicle and business
expenses to $10,233 and $2,283, respectively. The revised forms
increased Ms. Moore’s claimed vehicle expenses to $15,176 and
reduced her business expenses to $9,225. In the revised forms,
neither petitioner claimed deductions for travel, meals and
entertainment, nor parking fees, tolls, and transportation.2
Discussion
I. Burden of Proof
The Commissioner’s determinations in a notice of deficiency
are presumed correct, and the taxpayer has the burden to prove
that the determinations are in error. Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). But the burden of proof on
factual issues that affect a taxpayer’s tax liability may be
2 Petitioners abandoned these issues at trial and in effect
conceded that the following claimed deductions were not proper:
(1) Travel; (2) meals and entertainment; (3) parking fees, tolls,
and transportation; and (4) $4,392 of the total $15,900 in
business expenses. Accordingly, respondent’s determination is
sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008