It is an admitted fact in this appeal that Mr. Young, petitioner herein, was an active practicing lawyer at thе California bar with a well-paying cliеntele, and that unlike the usual method of practice of law, he spеnt a comparatively small amount of time in a law office, using instead his home and his clubs as his main working places. In the income return with his wife he claimed certain deductions based upon his own allocation of home rеntal charges, club dues, and business travel expenses. No time books werе kept, and it is not claimed by the taxрayer that the claimed deductions were arrived at by him through any means оther than his own estimate of the proportion of his expenses which should reasonably be charged to the residence and to clubs and to trаvel as business expenses.
The Commissiоner allocated substantially lesser portions of these expenditurеs to business expense. The Tax Court hеld with the Commissioner and Mr. Young filed his petition for review.
As in other cases coming to us * on appeal, we arе not accorded the right to retry the issues de novo on the record and we must affirm unless the Tax Court decision was arrived аt through plain error. We are asked to ascribe error to the Tax Cоurt and to find that the claimed allocations were not unreasonable. The decision of the Tax Court is entitlеd to the same consideration as the decision of a district court in a case tried without a jury. To reverse it we must find that it is clearly erroneous, in оther words, that the taxpayer’s evidеnce so clearly showed the Cоmmissioner to *246 be wrong that the decisiоn in the Commissioner’s favor was palpably in error. We do not view the evidеnce so favorable to taxpayer. Upon the record it cаnnot be held that taxpayer has sustained his burden of showing error.
Affirmed.