T.C. Summary Opinion 2003-22



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 NORMAN J. SUTER, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 11492-00S.           Filed March 18, 2003.



     Norman J. Suter, pro se.

     Jeanne Gramling, for respondent.



     DINAN, Special Trial Judge:    This case was heard pursuant to

the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect at the time the petition was filed.   The decision to be

entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion

should not be cited as authority.   Unless otherwise indicated,

subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
                                 - 2 -

effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the

Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

     Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner’s Federal

income taxes of $6,752 and $675 for the taxable years 1997 and

1998.    The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled

to disallowed deductions claimed as business supplies expense.1

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

The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.    Petitioner resided in

Matthews, North Carolina, on the date the petition was filed in

this case.

     During the years in issue, petitioner worked as an

independent contractor for Imperial Construction, Inc., and was

paid commissions for the jobs he completed.    He filed a Schedule

C, Profit or Loss From Business, in each year in issue, claiming

deductions for supplies expense of $26,250 in 1997 and $3,588 in

1998.    In the statutory notice of deficiency, respondent

disallowed $19,441 and $2,655 of these deductions, respectively.

     A taxpayer may deduct the ordinary and necessary expenses

paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on a trade

or business.    Sec. 162(a).   A taxpayer, however, generally must

keep records sufficient to establish the amounts of the items


     1
      The remaining adjustments in the statutory notice of
deficiency are computational and will be resolved by the Court’s
holding on the issue in this case.
                                - 3 -

reported on his Federal income tax return.     Sec. 6001; sec.

1.6001-1(a), (e), Income Tax Regs.      In the event that a taxpayer

establishes that a deductible expense has been paid but is unable

to substantiate the precise amount, we generally may estimate the

amount of the deductible expense bearing heavily against the

taxpayer whose inexactitude in substantiating the amount of the

expense is of his own making.    Cohan v. Commissioner, 

, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930).    We cannot estimate a deductible

expense, however, unless the taxpayer presents evidence

sufficient to provide some basis upon which an estimate may be

made.   Vanicek v. Commissioner, 

, 743 (1985).

     Petitioner testified that his tax return preparer may have

erroneously characterized certain expenses, primarily related to

advertising, causing otherwise deductible expenses to be listed

on the return under the category of “supplies”.     However,

petitioner was unable to provide any substantiation of either the

disallowed portion of the supplies expense or of any other

business expenses incurred but unclaimed on the returns.       Because

petitioner has failed to provide any credible evidence regarding

the existence or amount of any such expenses, petitioner bears

the burden of proving respondent’s determination in the notice of

deficiency to be error.   Sec. 7491(a)(1); Rule 142(a).    Because

petitioner has failed to substantiate the expenses, we sustain

respondent’s disallowance of the deductions therefor.
                                - 4 -

    Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

    To reflect the foregoing,

                                        Decision will be entered

                                for respondent.