TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Bryan Allen Haines & Jie Yuan
Docket Number: 10607-10
Judge: Cohen
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/08/2012
Pages: 3

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 BRYAN ALLEN HAINES & JIE YUAN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 10607-10. ) Respondent ) ) Order of Service of Transcript Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge Mary Ann Cohen at San Francisco, California, on May 9, 2012, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Mary Ann Cohen Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. June 8, 2012 SERVÉD JUN 1 2 20f2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bench Opinion by Judge Mary Ann Cohen May 9, 2012 Bryan Allen Haines & Jie Yuan v. Commissioner Docket No. 10607-10 2 THE COURT: In any event, The Court has decided to render an oral opinion, and the following represents the Court's oral opinion. Respondent determined a deficiency in Petitioners' federal income taxes for 2007 in the amount of $4,033. The deficiency resulted from disallowance of travel, meals, and entertainment and other expenses claimed on Schedule C in relation to an alleged business to recruit nurses. Petitioners have the burden of proof, and it has not shifted under section 7491, because there is inadequate evidence that a bona fide business existed. The travel that is claimed certainly clearly included personal purposes to the extent any inference is available from the flimsy evidence that's been produced. The Court's conclusion, however, is based primarily on the absence of relevant evidence, and the . negative inferences, primarily Petitioners' failure to call Mr. Haines, who was identified as the only witness in the pretrial memorandum filed by Petitioners in November of 2011, when the case was previously continued at their request. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 Respondent's pretrial memorandum filed then and filed last month laid out the applicable rules and what Petitioners must prove. There's been no corroboration of Petitioners' claims and there's no evidence supporting counsel's opening statement about the intent of the business. There's just vague conclusions about substantiation, no evidence in the record from which the Court could determine deductible or amortizable amounts, and there's certainly no substantiation meeting the statutory standards of 274(d) or 280A with respect to an office in the home. Based on the total failure of proof, decision will be entered for Respondent. We're adjourned until 2:15. THE CLERK: All rise. MS. ROMEY: Thank you, Your Honor. (Whereupon, at 10:34 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888