United States Tax Court

T.C. Summary Opinion 2023-11

CHALAUNDRA EDJEWEL SNEED,

Petitioner

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent

—————

Docket No. 1468-20S. Filed March 29, 2023.

—————

Chalaundra Edjewel Sneed, pro se.

Vassiliki Economides Farrior, for respondent.

SUMMARY OPINION

PARIS, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of 

section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the Petition 

was filed.1 Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not 

reviewable by any other court, and this Opinion shall not be treated as 

precedent for any other case. Further, this case was submitted to the 

Court fully stipulated for a decision without trial pursuant to Rule 122.

By statutory notice of deficiency dated October 21, 2019,

respondent determined a deficiency of $7,104 in petitioner’s 2018 federal 

income tax and a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty of $1,420.80.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Internal 

Revenue Code, Title 26 U.S.C., in effect at all relevant times, all regulation references 

are to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 26 (Treas. Reg.), in effect at all relevant 

times, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Served 03/29/23
2

After concessions,2 the issue for decision is whether petitioner is 

required to repay advance premium tax credit (APTC) payments 

totaling $6,874.50 for 2018.

Background

Petitioner resided in Oklahoma when she timely filed the 

Petition.

On May 15, 2018, petitioner enrolled in health insurance for 2018 

through the Oklahoma insurance Marketplace3 for herself and her two 

dependents for the remainder of tax year 2018. Petitioner’s monthly 

premium for health insurance coverage for herself and her two 

dependents was $1,145.75 per month. On the basis of the information 

petitioner provided in her application, she received a monthly APTC of 

$1,145.75 to cover the cost of the monthly premium; this amount was 

paid directly to the insurance company on behalf of petitioner for the 

months of July through December 2018. In total, APTC totaling 

$6,874.50 was paid on behalf of petitioner during tax year 2018.

Petitioner timely filed Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax 

Return, for 2018. She claimed herself and two dependents as personal 

exemptions. She reported wage income of $60,546, taxable interest of 

$20, taxable retirement distributions totaling $47,853, and additional 

income of $5,302. She reported adjusted gross income of $113,721.

Petitioner did not attach a copy of Form 8962, Premium Tax 

Credit (PTC), to her 2018 income tax return. She later separately mailed

a Form 8962, on which she reported modified adjusted gross income 

(MAGI) of $113,721.

In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioner 

was ineligible for the PTC because her MAGI for 2018, $113,721, 

exceeded 400% of the federal poverty line amount for her family size. 

Petitioner timely petitioned this Court for redetermination.

2 In the notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed petitioner’s premium tax 

credit (PTC) and determined an early withdrawal penalty on petitioner’s IRA 

distributions. Respondent concedes the early withdrawal penalty and further concedes 

the accuracy-related penalty.

3 A health insurance Marketplace, also known as an Exchange, is a state or 

federally run program where taxpayers can purchase health insurance. Internal 

Revenue Manual (IRM) 21.6.3.4.2.12.1(1) (Oct. 1, 2016).
3

Discussion

In general, the Commissioner’s determination set forth in a notice 

of deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of 

proving the determination is in error. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 

290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).4 The fact that a case has been submitted under 

Rule 122 “does not alter the burden of proof, or the requirements 

otherwise applicable with respect to adducing proof, or the effect of 

failure of proof.” Rule 122(b); see also Novoselsky v. Commissioner, T.C. 

Memo. 2020-68, at *13.

In 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), 

Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), became law. ACA § 1401(a), 

124 Stat. at 213, enacted section 36B, which allows a refundable tax 

credit, known as the PTC.5 The PTC assists eligible taxpayers with the 

costs of their premiums for health insurance purchased through an 

Exchange. See § 36B.

A taxpayer generally qualifies for the PTC if she has household 

income that is equal to an amount that is at least 100%, but not greater 

than 400%, of the federal poverty line amount for the taxpayer’s family 

size for the taxable year. § 36B(c)(1)(A); Treas. Reg. § 1.36B-2(b)(1). The 

federal poverty line amount is established by the most recently 

published poverty guidelines in effect on the first day of the open 

enrollment period preceding that taxable year. § 36B(d)(3); Treas. Reg. 

§ 1.36B-1(h). For taxable year 2018, 100% of the federal poverty line for 

a family size of three in the continental United States was $20,420 and 

400% was $81,680.6

Household income is defined as the MAGI of the taxpayer plus 

the MAGI of family members (1) for whom the taxpayer properly claims 

4 Pursuant to section 7491(a), the burden of proof may shift to the 

Commissioner if the taxpayer introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual 

issues relevant to ascertaining the taxpayer’s tax liability. The Court concludes that 

section 7491(a) does not apply because petitioner has not produced any evidence that 

she has satisfied the preconditions for its application.

5 The PTC is available for tax years ending after December 31, 2013. See ACA

§ 1401(e), 124 Stat. at 220.

6 The federal poverty guidelines are revised at least annually and are released 

by the Department of Health and Human Services. 42 U.S.C. § 9902(2), (4). The 

applicable federal poverty guidelines are provided in the instructions for Form 8962 

and additionally can be found at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/

2018/01/18/2018-00814/annual-update-of-the-hhs-poverty-guidelines.
4

deductions for personal exemptions and (2) who were required under 

section 1 to file a federal income tax return. § 36B(d); Treas. Reg. 

§ 1.36B-1(d) and (e)(1).

ACA § 1412, 124 Stat. at 231, allows the Secretary to authorize 

advance payments of the PTC, known as the APTC, on behalf of 

qualifying taxpayers. In such circumstances, a taxpayer elects to have 

the Bureau of Fiscal Services pay the APTC directly to her insurance 

carrier to help cover the cost of insurance premiums during the year. 

IRM 21.6.3.4.2.12(7) (Oct. 1, 2018). The amount of the payment is based 

upon the Exchange’s estimate of the PTC which the taxpayer may be 

entitled to claim on her return. The APTC may cover some or all of the 

taxpayer’s monthly premiums for a health insurance plan. ACA 

§ 1412(a), 124 Stat. at 231–33.

When preparing her income tax return, a taxpayer who has 

received the APTC is required to reconcile the APTC payments made 

during the year with the amount of the PTC for which she is actually 

eligible. If the total APTC payments exceed the amount of the PTC for 

which she is eligible, she owes the excess as a tax liability, subject to a 

repayment limitation in section 36B(f)(2)(B). ACA § 1401(a), 124 Stat. 

at 219; § 36B(f)(2)(A); Treas. Reg. § 1.36B-4(a)(1). This repayment 

limitation applies only to taxpayers whose household income is less than 

400% of the federal poverty line amount.7 § 36B(f)(2)(B)(i); Treas. Reg. 

§ 1.36B-4(a)(3).

Petitioner, who has a household size of three persons, reported 

MAGI of $113,721; this amount is greater than $81,680, 400% of the 

federal poverty line amount applicable for the year at issue. See §§ 1, 

36B(c)(1)(A), (d); Treas. Reg. § 1.36B-1(d), (e), (h). Because petitioner’s 

household income for her family size is greater than 400% of the federal

poverty line amount, she does not qualify for the PTC. See § 36B(a), 

(c)(1)(A); Treas. Reg. § 1.36B-2(a) and (b)(1). Since petitioner does not 

qualify for the PTC, she owes the APTC payments of $6,874.50 made on 

her behalf as a tax liability. See § 36B(f)(1) and (2); Treas. Reg. § 1.36B7 The repayment limitation provides that the amount to be repaid is limited to 

the following amounts on the basis of household income (expressed as a percentage of 

the poverty line amount): (1) $600 if household income is less than 200%; (2) $1,500 if 

household income is at least 200% but less than 300%; and (3) $2,500 if household 

income is at least 300% but less than 400%. These dollar amounts are reduced by onehalf in the case of unmarried individuals whose tax is determined under section 1(c). 

The section also provides that these amounts are indexed. § 36B(f)(2)(B); see also Treas. 

Reg. § 1.36B-4(a)(3).
5

4(a)(1). Petitioner is not subject to the repayment limitation because her 

household income is greater than 400% of the federal poverty line 

amount. See § 36B(f)(2)(B)(i); Treas. Reg. § 1.36B-4(a)(3).

Petitioner does not appear to dispute respondent’s determination 

on technical grounds but instead seeks a collection alternative because 

of financial hardship. In this proceeding to redetermine a deficiency 

under section 6213(a), the collectibility of the tax liability is not at issue 

before the Court. The Court notes, however, that the Oklahoma 

Marketplace informed petitioner that she was eligible for the APTC for 

2018 because of an apparent misunderstanding of the application 

instructions on her part. The Court is not unsympathetic to petitioner’s 

plight. Nevertheless, the Court is bound by the statute as written and 

the accompanying regulations when consistent therewith. Michaels v. 

Commissioner, 87 T.C. 1412, 1417 (1986); Brissett v. Commissioner, T.C. 

Memo. 2003-310, 2003 WL 22520105, at *3. The simple facts are that 

petitioner’s MAGI exceeded eligibility levels and that she must repay 

the APTC payments made on her behalf. Accordingly, the Court sustains 

respondent’s determination.

The Court has considered all of the parties’ arguments, and, to 

the extent not addressed herein, they are considered moot, irrelevant, 

or otherwise without merit.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered under Rule 155.