Opinion ID: 771439
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tax Law

Text: 8 The burden of proof in a tax refund case is on the taxpayer to show erroneous findings by the IRS because the IRS's deficiency determinations are presumed correct. Mays, 763 F.2d at 1297. Trucks must be able to corroborate its claim by evidence beyond tax returns, uncorroborated oral testimony, or self-serving statements. Id. (citations omitted). However, evidence about the state of mind of the company's president, who made many of the decisions at issue here, is considered direct evidence as to the reasonableness of her decisions, and will not be seen as merely self-serving statements. See Rogers v. Evans, 792 F.2d 1052, (11th Cir.1986) (Ordinarily, summary judgment should not be granted in cases where motive, intent, subjective feelings, and reactions are to be searched.).
9 An employer may deduct from his gross income reimbursements for business expenses incurred by an employee under a reimbursement or other expense allowance arrangement with his employer. 26 U.S.C. 62(a)(2)(A). A plan that is covered under 62, and, therefore, is exempt from employment taxation, is considered an accountable plan under 26 C.F.R. 1.62-2(c)(2)(i) (2000). 3 A plan is accountable when (1) it covers only expenses with a business connection, see id. at 1.62-2(d); (2) all expenses are substantiated to the employer, see id. at 1.62-2(e); and (3) the employee is required to return to the employer any amount paid in excess of substantiated expenses, see id. at 1.62-2(f). See also Robertson v. Commissioner, 190 F.3d 392, 395 (5th Cir.1999). If a plan does not meet these criteria, it is considered nonaccountable and is subject to withholding and employment taxes. See id. at 1.62-2(c)(3)(i) & 1.62-2(c)(5).