                        T.C. Memo. 1997-215



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              JOE NATHAN BRYANT, JR., Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 12420-95.                       Filed May 7, 1997.



     Joe Nathan Bryant, Jr., pro se.

     Horace Crump, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

     KÖRNER, Judge:   Respondent determined deficiencies in and

penalties on petitioner's Federal income taxes for the years and

in the amounts as follows:
                                  - 2 -

                                        Penalty
            Year     Deficiency       Sec. 6662(a)

            1992       $8,376             $1,675
            1993        8,137              1,627

     All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the years in issue.     All Rule references are to the

Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

     At the time the petition herein was filed, petitioner was a

resident of Birmingham, Alabama.     He filed his income tax returns

for the years 1992 and 1993 on the basis of married filing

separately.    In the years in issue, petitioner was employed as a

policeman for the Fairfield Police Department.       He also provided

private security service and was a member of the Coast Guard

Reserve during these years.

     At trial herein, petitioner appeared on behalf of himself.

Although he testified, he produced no other witnesses, and no

documentary evidence of any sort was offered in support of his

position.    He admitted at trial that he failed to substantiate

any of the business expenses claimed on Schedule C of his 1992

and 1993 tax returns, and he also admitted that he did not

substantiate any of the claimed deductions on Schedule A of his

1992 and 1993 tax returns.

     The adjustments made by respondent to petitioner's taxable

returns were as follows:
                               - 3 -

     1.   Respondent determined that petitioner had received State

income tax refunds in the amounts of $424 and $464 in 1992 and

1993, which petitioner failed to report.

     2.   Respondent disallowed $16,449 and $16,439, respectively,

for the years 1992 and 1993 on account of Schedule C business-

related deductions by petitioner.

     3.   With respect to petitioner's itemized deductions under

Schedule A on the returns in issue, respondent disallowed $28,985

for 1992 and $28,526 for 1993 on account of deductions other than

State income taxes paid by petitioner in those years, which

respondent allowed.

     Where the Commissioner has made a determination of

deficiency in income tax against a taxpayer, such as here,

regarding his income for a given year, the burden of proof on

each issue determined by the Commissioner is on the taxpayer.

The Commissioner's determination of the deficiencies is

presumably correct.   Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S.

111 (1933).

     Furthermore, deductions from income are strictly a matter of

legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving

entitlement to all deductions claimed.     INDOPCO, Inc. v.

Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v.

Helvering, 292 U.S. 435 (1934).

     So far as respondent's determination of deficiencies is

concerned, based upon income and deductions as reported and/or
                                 - 4 -

claimed by petitioner, there is nothing in this record except

petitioner's naked testimony to dispute respondent's

determinations.    Petitioner's testimony, standing alone, is not

to be taken as gospel, and it does not carry petitioner's burden

of proof.   Halle v. Commissioner, 7 T.C. 245 (1946), affd. 175

F.2d 500 (2d Cir. 1949).    Therefore, so far as respondent's

determinations are based upon income and deductions as reported

by petitioner, we must sustain respondent.

     There remain, however, several discrepancies between

respondent's determinations herein and the record regarding

petitioner's reported deductions.     Specifically:

     1.   For the year 1992, respondent's notice of deficiency

purported to disallow $16,449 of business-related deductions

under Schedule C, whereas petitioner actually reported $8,011 of

such deductions.   Respondent's explanation for this discrepancy

is that this was an "error" that respondent had corrected; how or

at what time this correction was made we do not know, but it

apparently is not in accordance with the income and deductions as

reported by petitioner, and we do not see what statutory basis

respondent has for making a determination of deficiency based on

a "correction".    Sec. 6212.   Likewise for the year 1993,

respondent disallowed $16,439 of petitioner's business expenses

under Schedule C, whereas the record herein shows that petitioner

actually claimed only $16,119.     We will take the figures as
                               - 5 -

reported by petitioner's returns, which are stipulated in

evidence herein.

     2.   With respect to the itemized deductions (Schedule A) on

petitioner's return for the year 1992, respondent disallowed the

amount of $28,985 as deductions; petitioner, however, claimed

only $29,495 in itemized deductions on that return, of which

respondent has conceded $1,306.   We know of no basis for

respondent's determination of a disallowed deduction in excess of

petitioner's claim, after allowing for respondent's concession.

     3.   With respect to the year 1993, respondent disallowed

$28,526 of itemized deductions; petitioner had claimed $29,870,

and after respondent's concession of $1,344, the net disallowance

by respondent of $28,526 appears correct in accordance with the

present record.

     The above discrepancies with respect to the disallowances by

respondent as compared to the deductions as claimed by petitioner

in the 2 years in question will have to be reconciled in the

necessary computation herein under Rule 155.

     With regard to the penalties in tax for the years 1992 and

1993, determined herein by respondent, section 6662(a) imposes a

penalty in the amount of 20 percent of the portion of the

underpayment attributable to negligence.   Petitioner is liable

for an accuracy-related penalty for negligence in the preparation

and filing of his 1992 and 1993 tax returns.   Petitioner failed

to substantiate any of the deductions taken on the 1992 and 1993
                               - 6 -

tax returns except for the State income taxes previously

mentioned herein.   Therefore, he is liable for the accuracy-

related penalty pursuant to section 6662(c), which defines

negligence as the failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply

with the tax law.   Hamdi v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-38,

affd. without published opinion 23 F.3d 407 (6th Cir. 1994);

Dillon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-11.

                                       Decision will be entered

                               under Rule 155.
