T.C. Memo. 1998-160

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

CHESTER J. JANAS, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 27010-96. Filed May 4, 1998.

Chester J. Janas, pro se.

David Choi and Victoria Crosley, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

FOLEY, Judge: Respondent determined the following

deficiencies in and additions to petitioner's Federal income

taxes:

 Additions to Tax

Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654

1993 $19,032 $2,006 $636 

1994 19,377 3,869 998
- 2 -

All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect

for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax

Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. After concessions, the

issues for decision are as follows:

1. Whether petitioner is entitled, pursuant to section

165(c)(3), to casualty loss deductions for 1993 and 1994. We

hold that he is not.

2. Whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for

failure to file Federal income tax returns for 1993 and 1994. We

hold that he is.

3. Whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for

failure to remit estimated tax payments for 1993 and 1994. We

hold that he is.

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. 

Petitioner is a self-employed medical doctor licensed to practice

in Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa. He resided in Chicago, Illinois,

at the time the petition was filed. During the years in issue,

petitioner received income from Medical Doctor Associates, Inc.,

and Gibson General Hospital, each of which issued Forms 1099

reflecting such income as nonemployee compensation. Petitioner

also received interest income, for which Forms 1099 were issued. 

None of these payors withheld taxes.

Petitioner did not file Federal income tax returns for

either of the years in issue. He did, however, file extension
- 3 -

requests and remittances of $11,000 and $3,900 for 1993 and 1994,

respectively. Because petitioner failed to file his Federal

income tax returns, respondent created substitute returns from

the Forms 1099 that petitioner's payors had submitted. These

substitute returns formed the basis of respondent's notice of

deficiency.

In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that in

1993 petitioner received $58,672 from Medical Doctor Associates,

Inc., and in 1994 petitioner received $11,877 from Medical Doctor

Associates, Inc., plus Schedule C gross receipts of $48,046. 

Respondent now concedes that the $48,046 Schedule C adjustment is

erroneous but asserts, in an amended answer, that petitioner's

1994 income should be increased by $8,000 that petitioner

allegedly received from Gibson General Hospital. Petitioner does

not contest the additional $8,000, and he concedes the remaining

items of income determined in the notice of deficiency. 

Petitioner asserts, however, that his taxable income should be

reduced for casualty losses he sustained during each of the years

in issue. 

Section 165 allows a deduction for casualty losses sustained

during the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance. 

Petitioner contends that he owned property located in Danville,

Illinois, and that in 1993 such property was destroyed by a fire,

resulting in an alleged $164,123 loss. Petitioner has failed,
- 4 -

however, to offer any evidence (e.g., a police report or

insurance claim) to establish his contention. Petitioner also

contends that in 1994 two of his automobiles were stolen. He has

failed, however, to offer any evidence relating to their cost. 

In addition, he has failed to establish that the allegedly stolen

automobiles were not compensated for by insurance. We conclude

that petitioner is not entitled to a casualty loss deduction and

that respondent's deficiency determinations, adjusted for

concessions, are correct.

Respondent determined that petitioner is liable, pursuant to

section 6651(a)(1), for failure to file his 1993 and 1994 Federal

income tax returns. Section 6651 imposes an addition to tax for

failure to file a tax return in a timely manner, unless such

failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful

neglect. Petitioner has the burden of proving that he is not

liable for the additions to tax. Rule 142(a); see Welch v.

Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). He contends that he filed

his returns and, therefore, is not liable for the additions to

tax. The Internal Revenue Service has no record that it received

such returns, and petitioner failed to present either copies of

his returns or mailing receipts. We conclude that petitioner has

failed to establish that he filed his 1993 and 1994 returns. 

Accordingly, he is liable for the section 6651(a)(1) additions to

tax.
- 5 -

Respondent determined that petitioner is liable, pursuant to

section 6654, for failure to pay estimated income tax. Section

6654 imposes an addition to tax for failure to make estimated

income tax payments. Petitioner has the burden, see Welch v.

Helvering, supra, but failed to prove that respondent's

determination is wrong. Petitioner's only contention relating to

this issue is a general denial of liability contained in the

petition. Petitioner did not remit estimated payments in a

timely manner, and no tax payments were withheld from his

compensation. Accordingly, petitioner is liable for the section

6654 additions to tax. 

All other contentions raised by the parties are either

irrelevant or without merit.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered

pursuant to Rule 155.