TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Oscar & Marisol Silva
Docket Number: 417-12S
Judge: Haines
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/10/2013
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 OSCAR & MARISOL SILVA, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Docket No. 417-12S . Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial of this case before Judge Haines at San Francisco, California on December 3, 2012, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Harry A. Haines Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. January 10, 2013 SERVED ÜAN 17 2013 UNITED STATES TAX COURT OSCAR & MARISOL SILVA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 417-12S. Oscar & Marisol Silva, pro sese. Shannon Edelstone, for respondent. BENCH OPINI N The Court has decided to render ral findings of fact and opinion in this case and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion: The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. The Petitioners filed a petition with this Court in response to a Notice of Deficiency for 2008, in which Respondent determined that Petitioners had a deficiency of $8,000 and a penalty under Section 6662(a) of $1,600. The penalty has been conceded by Respondent and the only issue for determination is whether Petitioners are entitled to claim the first-time home buyer credit in the amount of $8,000 for 2008.. The parties' Stipulation of Facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. At the time of filing their petition, Petitioners resided in King City, California. Petitioners timely filed their Fo m 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for 2008. On their 2008 Form 1040 Petitioners claimed the first-time home buyer credit for a property Petitioner Wife purchased on Cambridge Avenue in King City, California (the Cambridge Avenue property). Petitioners claimed mortgage inte est and real estate taxes on their Form 1040 for taxable years 2006 and 2007 for a property located on Van Etten Avenue, in King City, California (the Van Etten property). Petitioner Husband informed Respondent that the Van Etten property was Petitioners' principal residence before Petitioner Wife purchased the Cambridge Avenue property, ans so testified to the Court. On June 9, 2006 a quit claim deed was recorded with the Monterey County Recorder in which Peti ioner Wife released her interest in the Van Etten Avenue property. Respondent issued a Notice of Def ciency to Petitioners on October 17, 2011, disallowing their first-time home buyer credit for 2008. In response to the Notice of Deficiency, Petitioners filed their. petition with this Court on January 5, 2012. Petitioners' position is that Petitioner Wife qualified for the first-time home buyer credit because she did not have an interest in the Van Etten Avenue Property. Section 36(a) of the Internal Revenue Code provides a refundable tax credit to a first-time home buyer of a principal residence in the United States. In 2008, the amount of the credit was 10 percent of the purchase price of the residence, with a limitation of $7,500. Taxpayers had the ability to choose to claim the credit on their 2008 return for a principal residence ought after December 31, 2008 and before December 1, 2009, Sectilon 36(g). The credit was also increased to $8,000 for 2009. Section 36(c) (1) defines a first-time home buyer as "Any individual (and if married, the individual spouse) having no present ownership interest in a princi al residence during the three-year period ending on the date of the purchase of the principal residence." Petitioner Husband had an ownership interest in the Van Etten Avenue property, the principal residence during the three- year period ending on the date of purchase of the Cambridge Avenue property. As a result of Petitioner Husband's ownership interest in the Van Etten Avenue property, petitioners are not eligible to claim the first-time home buyer credit for 2008 pursuant to Section 36. In reaching these holdings, the Court has considered all arguments made and, to the extent not mentioned, concludes that they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit to reflect the foregoing decision will be entered for Respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of facts and opinion.