Chris Patriot                                        )
Petitioner                                           ) 		Docket No. 08-ALJ-17-0000-CC
Vs.                                                  )
                                                     ) 		Affidavit of Expenses and 
South Carolina Department of Revenue                 ) 		Deductions      
Respondent                                           )

Petitioner, herby submits this affidavit as a true list of his unreimbursed business expenses, deduction, credit, etc.
Attached is a list of unreimbursed business expenses, deductions, etc and the amounts for the tax year 2003, Petitioner claims these business expenses add up to a total of $29,850 for the cost of doing business, $9780.00 for unreimbursed employee expenses and $33,800 for deductions.

Petitioner due to no fault of his own does not have adequate books and records to substantiate his business expenses and deductions, etc. Taxpayer is neither a lawyer nor a CPA and has no legal or tax education training. He is simply a working person. Since he is unable to fill out his tax return, he must hire tax professionals.

At the trial the SCDOR will use only hearsay documents against Petitioner. Therefore, taxpayer should be allowed to submit this affidavit. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Therefore taxpayer does not have the necessary records to substantiate his records and deductions but must reconstruct them under the Cohen rule. Petitioner is not an accountant or tax professional and did not keep all of his records for a specified period of time.

Taxpayer had 4 dependent children.

The reconstruction is based upon the Cohen Case. The Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Cohen vs. CIR, 266 F2d 5 (1959); that in tax court, taxpayer can use reasonable figures, instead of figures conjured by the SCDOR that cannot be corrected. Taxpayer can also reconstruct lost paperwork to substantiate his deductions and expenses.
The 9th Circuit Court ruled in Cohen v. CIR, 266 F 2d 5(1959):

“We think our only proper course is to approach the problem indirectly by analysis of the record in the light of the principles established in Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540 (2d Cir. 1930). Our objective will be, after resolving any reasonable doubts against petitioner, to reconstruct his gross income as betting commissioner at a figure which in our judgment it would be unlikely to exceed in fact.”

The SCDOR is authorized by State Legislature only to collect taxes that are actually due. The tax court has a duty to find taxes that are in fact owed. The SCDOR know the petitioner has unreimbursed business expenses, schedule A deductions, etc. Only the amount is unknown.

A deficiency determination which is not supported by some evidentiary foundation is arbitrary and erroneous. Wiemerskirck v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358, 361-362 (9th Cir. 1979), revg. 67 T.C. 672 (1977) In conclusion Petitioner request that this court allow the Petitioner to introduce and present an affidavit or allow him to testify under oath as to the same.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: I hereby certify that on or about this date, I gave a copy of this pleading to the Respondent.

______________________ DATE: August 19, 2008
Chris Patriot
Greer, SC 29650