T.C. Memo. 2004-96

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

HAMID AND EOLINA BAJRAMOVIC, Petitioners v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 10259-02. Filed April 7, 2004.

Hamid and Eolina Bajramovic, pro sese.

Thomas D. Yang, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

HAINES, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in

response to the notice of deficiency sent to petitioner Hamid

Bajramovic and petitioner Eolina Bajramovic, collectively

petitioners. Respondent determined a deficiency of $795 for

petitioners’ 1999 Federal income tax. The sole issue for
- 2 -

1 Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the

Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and the

Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and

Procedure. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.

decision is whether petitioners are entitled to a deduction for

moving expenses in 1999.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The facts in this case have been deemed stipulated pursuant

to Rule 91(f).1 At the time the petition was filed, petitioners

resided in Chicago, Illinois.

In 1998, petitioners and their two dependent children left

their home in the former Yugoslavia. Petitioners traveled to

Germany, where they applied to come to the United States.

In April 1998, petitioners and their children were granted

refugee status and were accepted for resettlement in the United

States. Petitioners were to relocate to Chicago, Illinois, but

they were unable to pay for the airline tickets until they

received a $2,074 loan from the International Organization for

Migration (IOM).

On June 8, 1998, petitioners and their children were issued

permanent resident cards. The next day petitioners and their

children flew from Frankfurt, Germany, to their new home in

Chicago, Illinois.

Petitioners filed a joint Federal income tax return for

1999, claiming a $5,340 deduction for moving expenses. On May
- 3 -

2 SEC. 217. MOVING EXPENSES

(a) Deduction Allowed.–-There shall be allowed as a

deduction moving expenses paid or incurred during the

taxable year in connection with the commencement of work by

the taxpayer as an employee or as a self-employed individual

at a new principal place of work.

17, 2002, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioners

for 1999 determining an income tax deficiency of $795 after

denying the claimed moving expense deduction. On June 17, 2002,

petitioners timely filed a petition with the Court disputing

respondent’s determination.

OPINION

Ordinarily, moving expenses are considered nondeductible

family and living expenses. See Jorman v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1996-297. However, a taxpayer may deduct moving expenses

incurred during the taxable year in connection with the

taxpayer’s commencement of work if he meets the requirements of

section 217(a).2

The taxable year in issue is 1999. Petitioners moved to

Chicago, Illinois, in 1998, but claimed a deduction of $5,340 for

moving expenses in 1999. Petitioners provided no testimony or

evidence to prove they paid or incurred any moving expenses in

1999, nor did they offer a basis on which the Court could make an

estimate under Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 544 (2d Cir.
- 4 -

3 We need not decide whether the burden of proof shifts to 

respondent under sec. 7491(a) because the facts are not in

dispute and the issue is one of law.

1930).3 See Chiu v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-199;

Haberthier v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-377.

The parties stipulated to the fact that petitioners incurred

a moving expense of $2,074 for airline tickets in 1998. 

Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to deduct moving expenses

incurred during 1998 on their 1999 Federal income tax return. 

Sec. 217(a); see Meadows v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 51 (1976);

Shaumyan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-543, affd. without

published opinion 697 F.2d 297 (2d Cir. 1982); Kincheloe v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-527.

Petitioners moved their family from the former Yugoslavia to

the United States in an attempt to start a new life. Petitioners

undoubtedly faced great hardships in their move. Keeping records

of their expenses and making sure they met the statutory

requirements for deducting moving expenses were understandably

the farthest things from their minds. However, the law is

specific in the requirements that must be met in order to deduct

moving expenses, and we are unable to afford petitioners any

relief under the law.

In reaching our holding herein, we have considered all

arguments made, and, to the extent not mentioned above, we

conclude that they are irrelevant or without merit.
- 5 -

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered 

for respondent.