12 T.C.M. 181 | Tax Ct. | 1953
1953 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 369" label="1953 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 369" no-link"="" number="1" pagescheme="<span class=">1953 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 369">*369 Petitioner's claim for traveling expenses incurred as a football player allowed in part.
Memorandum Opinion
VAN FOSSAN, Judge: The respondent determined a deficiency of $249.84 in petitioners' income tax for the year 1946, consequent on his disallowance of certain expenses claimed by petitioners to have been incurred in connection with petitioner John R. Thomas' business as a professional football player.
Petitioners' return for the taxable year listed in Schedules F and G the following items of alleged expense:
| Depreciation on automobile (one- | |
| half of total expense) | $ 150.00 |
| Car repairs | 100.00 |
| Tires | 50.00 |
| Gasoline | 140.00 |
| Oil | 18.75 |
| Food | 360.00 |
| Hotel and lodging | 350.00 |
| Equipment | 56.90 |
| Total | $1,225.65 |
Petitioners, in paragraph IV, sub-paragraph 1, of their petition, alleged error in "increasing income in the amount of $249.84 on account of 'auto and living expenses disallowed.'" (This figure is obviously an error by the attorney who drafted1953 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 369" label="1953 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 369" no-link"="" number="2" pagescheme="<span class=">1953 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 369">*370 the petition.) The erroneous figure was repeated in sub-paragraph 5 of paragraph V of the petition and in paragraph 1 of the prayer of the petition. Respondent, in his answer, denied all material allegations of the petition and alleged that the Commissioner had disallowed auto and living expenses in the amount of $1,168.75, rather than the figure of $249.84, alleged in the petition.
[Opinion]
Under the law, the petitioners had the burden of proof of error. This included affirmative proof that the alleged expenses were both ordinary and necessary. See
Petitioners' attorney erroneously contends that the case presents only a question of law. On the contrary, the law is clear and presents no problem. The allowance of the expenses depends almost entirely on the facts.
The above quotation evidences a complete ignorance of practice before this Court. The burden of proof rested on petitioners and there was no obligation resting on the Government either to cross-examine or otherwise furnish petitioners with proof of their case.
Petitioner testified that he spent the amount of money claimed in his return but gave us little information as to details of the items claimed, such as the number of trips from Columbus to Detroit, the distance traveled, the amount of gasoline and oil used, the nature of the repairs, etc. Nor did he tell us what is comprehended under the item "Equipment". He estimated that he spent from 80 to 90 days in Detroit during the taxable year and was employed by a manufacturing concern in Columbus, where he had his home, for the remainder of the1953 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 369" label="1953 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 369" no-link"="" number="4" pagescheme="<span class=">1953 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 369">*372 year. On such a showing we cannot find for petitioner in the full amount of his claim. We are satisfied, however, that he spent a considerable sum in connection with his business as a professional football player, playing for the Detroit Lions. In the absence of adequate proof of the total amount, we nevertheless find that he should be allowed the aggregate amount of $800 as a deduction from income for the year 1946.
Decision will be entered under Rule 50.
