APPEAL OF LYON

• Decision Date: 27 January 1925
• Docket Number: Docket No. 81.
• Citation: 1 BTA 378
• Parties: Appeal of J. M. LYON.
• Court: U.S. Board of Tax Appeals

1 B.T.A. 378 (1925)

Appeal of J. M. LYON.

Docket No. 81.

Board of Tax Appeals.

Submitted January 7, 1925.

Decided January 27, 1925.

Alfred J. Stern, C. P. A., for the taxpayer.

Willis D. Nance, Esq.(Nelson T. Hartson, Solicitor of Internal Revenue) for the Commissioner.

Before GRAUPNER, LANSDON, LITTLETON, and SMITH.

This appeal is from a deficiency in the amount of $5,432.33 for income taxes for the fiscal year ending February 29, 1920.From the evidence submitted the Board makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT.

1.The taxpayer is engaged in the business of selling jewelry on installment payments and has his place of business at 2 Maiden Lane, New York City.

2.In filing his return for the fiscal year ending February 29, 1920, the taxpayer reported income from his business in the amount of $32,830.36 and claimed deductions in the amount of $1,522.91.This income was computed on an installment basis from data found in the office of the taxpayer, but the books of account of the business were not kept on such a basis.The taxpayer's books showed an income of $52,404.07, which the Commissioner has accepted as the true income and used as the basic figure upon which to compute the tax complained of.

3.The Commissioner reduced the claimed deductions by the amount of $400.This amount was claimed by the taxpayer as the aggregate paid by him during the fiscal year for taxes on theatre tickets, railroad fares, and sundry luxuries.No vouchers for or accounts of expenditures for admissions and sales taxes were kept by the taxpayer.

DECISION.

The deficiency determined by the Commissioner is approved.

OPINION.

GRAUPNER:

In deciding this appeal we do not determine that the taxpayer was not entitled to make his income-tax return upon an installment basis.Had sufficient evidence been submitted for our consideration, his appeal might have merited a favorable decision.

Rule 20 of this Board provides that the burden of proof is on the taxpayer.That means that he must introduce sufficient evidence to make a prima facie showing that the Commissioner committed the errors alleged in the petition and to overcome the proofs submitted on behalf of the Commissioner.Such a showing must cover all the elements necessary to establish the averments of the petition.This Board is required by law to make findings of fact.Such findings can not be made upon conjecture, ex parte statements, or argument.They must be supported by evidence presented to the Board.What...