                        T.C. Memo. 1999-274



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              WILLIAM ALLEN SIMPSON, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent




     Docket Nos. 6165-98.                     Filed August 13, 1999.



     William Allen Simpson, pro se.

     Trevor T. Wetherington, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     LARO, Judge:   William Allen Simpson petitioned the Court to

redetermine respondent's determination of a $43,858 deficiency in

his 1994 Federal income tax and additions thereto under sections

6651(a)(1) and 6654(a) of $6,840 and $2,227, respectively.

Following the parties' concessions, we must decide whether
                                 - 2 -

petitioner may deduct amounts for 1994 greater than those allowed

by respondent and whether petitioner is liable for the additions

to tax set forth above.    We hold that petitioner may not deduct

any greater amount and that he is liable for the additions to

tax.    Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the subject years.    Rule references are to the Tax

Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.    Dollar amounts are

rounded to the nearest dollar.

                           FINDINGS OF FACT

       Some facts have been stipulated.   The stipulated facts and

the exhibit submitted therewith are incorporated herein by this

reference.    Petitioner was self-employed during 1994 as a

computer engineer.    He resided in Madison Heights, Michigan, when

he petitioned the Court.

       Petitioner did not timely file a 1994 Federal income tax

return.    Respondent determined petitioner's income tax liability

for 1994 and issued to him a notice of deficiency reflecting that

determination.    Respondent later adjusted that determination to

take into account deductions raised and substantiated by

petitioner after the issuance of the notice of deficiency.

Petitioner asserts that, in addition to the deductions allowed by

respondent, he may deduct certain other amounts as business

expenses.    Petitioner paid $3,600 to a personal acquaintance

(Elizabeth Helmboldt), $10,000 to his sister (Ruth Eileen
                                 - 3 -
Simpson), and $1,064 for a flying lesson.    Petitioner asserts

that these payments were ordinary and necessary expenses of his

computer engineering business.    Petitioner has never obtained a

pilot's license nor piloted an airplane in carrying on his

business.

                               OPINION

     Petitioner must prove that respondent's determinations set

forth in the notice of deficiency are incorrect.    See Rule

142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).    Petitioner

also must prove his entitlement to any deduction.    Deductions are

strictly a matter of legislative grace, and petitioner must show

that his claimed deductions are allowed by the Code.    See also

New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).

Petitioner must maintain sufficient records to substantiate his

claimed deductions.   See sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax

Regs.

     Petitioner's burden of proof requires that he introduce

sufficient evidence to:   (1) Make a prima facie case establishing

that respondent committed the errors alleged in the petition and

(2) overcome the evidence favorable to respondent.     See Lyon v.

Commissioner, 1 B.T.A. 378, 379 (1925); see also Lawler v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-26.    Petitioner relies mainly on

his testimony to meet his burden.    We find his testimony

unpersuasive and incomplete.   Petitioner provided no written
                               - 4 -
documents establishing that the disputed expenses are related to

his business, nor did he call any witnesses to corroborate his

testimony.   Because the record is devoid of evidence disproving

any of respondent's determinations, we sustain those

determinations in full.   See Finesod v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

1994-66.

     To reflect respondent's concessions,

                                              Decision will be

                                         entered under Rule 155.
