T.C. Memo. 1999-19

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

CHARLES EDWARD SHEPHERD, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 2244-98. Filed January 29, 1999.

Charles Edward Shepherd, pro se.

David D. Choi, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

LARO, Judge: Charles Edward Shepherd petitioned the Court

to redetermine a 1996 deficiency of $41,363. In a notice of

deficiency dated December 23, 1997, respondent determined that

petitioner had failed to substantiate itemized deductions in

excess of the standard deduction to which he was entitled. In
-2-

lieu of itemized deductions, respondent allowed petitioner a

$4,000 standard deduction.

We must decide whether petitioner is entitled to itemized

deductions in excess of the $4,000 standard deduction allowed by

respondent. We hold that he is not. Unless otherwise stated,

section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for

the year at issue. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of

Practice and Procedure. Amounts are rounded to the nearest

dollar.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. 

The stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached thereto are

incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner was a resident

of Evanston, Illinois, when he filed this petition. Petitioner

filed a 1996 individual income tax return as a single individual.

During 1996, petitioner incurred and paid medical and dental

expenses amounting to $2,906. Aside from these medical and

dental expenses, respondent disallowed all other expenses

petitioner claimed on his 1996 return.

OPINION
-3-

1 The examination of petitioner's return began before

July 23, 1998. Therefore sec. 7491, which was added to the Code

by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of

1998, Pub. L. 105-206, sec. 3001(a), 112 Stat. 685, 726, and

which shifts the burden of proof to respondent in certain

circumstances, does not apply to this matter. 

Petitioner must prove that respondent's determination set

forth in the notice of deficiency is incorrect1. Rule 142(a);

Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Petitioner must

also prove his entitlement to any claimed deduction. Deductions

are strictly a matter of legislative grace, and petitioner must

show that his claimed deductions are allowed by the Code. New

Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435 (1934).

The only documentary evidence on the record tending to

establish petitioner's entitlement to itemized deductions

consists of receipts for medical and dental expenses amounting to

$2,906. In his testimony, petitioner alluded to the existence of

additional documentation and additional allowable expenses.

However he never presented any such documentation to the Court. 

Based on petitioner's somewhat confused and self-contradictory

testimony, we are unable to conclude that he is entitled to

itemized deductions beyond those reflected in the stipulation of

facts. Those amounts are less than the allowable standard

deduction for the year at issue. Respondent's determination that
-4-

petitioner is entitled to claim only the standard deduction is

accordingly sustained.

Decision will be entered

for respondent.