It’s not a good thing for you when the Tax Court begins its opinion with “…[the petitioner] seeks to deduct expenses by relying mostly — if not quite entirely — on doctored receipts and implausible testimony.” The opinion includes such gems as a flood that didn’t occur, a receipt dated on the top as 1999 but at the bottom 1996 (and the seller says 1996), “…the next two deductions at least sound valid….” Needless to say, the petitioner didn’t do well.
Case: Obot v. Commissioner