TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Linda J. Tomlin & Spencer N. Payne
Docket Number: 21099-10
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/21/2011
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 Petitioners, LINDA J. TOMLIN & SPENCER N. PAYNE,) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Re spondent . v. Docket No. 21099-10 O R D E .R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit the to petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of Diane L. Kroupa at Los Angeles, California, on October 6, 2011, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion. the above case before Judge the proceedings of the pages of In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa Judge Dated: Washington, D. C. October 21, 2011 § ÈRVED QCT 2 4 2011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE DIANE L . KROUPA OCTOBER 6, 2011 TOMLIN & PAYNE V. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO.: 21099-10 THE COURT: THE COURT HAS DECIDED -TO RENDER ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE AND THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION. THESE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This deficiency case is before the Court on respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court scheduled the motion for a hearing. Elaine Fuller appeared on behalf of respondent . At the hearing on respondent ' s motion, petitioners failed to appear in person or file a statement in lieu of attending the hearing pursuant to Rule 50 (c) . Petitioner Spencer ~P^ayne provided an ëxcuse letter to explain why he was un ble to attend thè hearing but nothing was provided reèarding petitioner Linda Tomlin. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-488 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Respondent audited the return petitioners filed for 2007. Consequently, respondent sent petitioners a statutory deficiency notice (deficiency notice), determining a $2,737 deficiency in petitioners' Federal income taxes for 2007. The deficiency resulted from respondent disallowing, for lack of substantiation, $18,274 of expenses petitioners claimed on Schedule A of the return. The Schedule A expenses that respondent disallowed included medical expenses, charitable contributions and unreimbursed employee business expenses. Petitioners timely filed a petition contesting respondent's determinations in the deficiency notice. Petitioners resided in California at the time they filed the petition. Respondent filed with the Court requests for admission, which requests had been previously served on petitioners. Petitioners failed to respond, and pursuant to Rule 90 (c), each matter set forth in the requests for admission are deemed admitted. Consequently, petitioners are deemed to have admitted that they did not pay unreimbursed medical expenses of $10,001 during 2007. Petitioners are also deemed to have admitted that they did not make any charitable contributions during 2007 nor did they pay without Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reimbursement $580 for safety glasses. Finally, petitioners are deemed to have admitted that they did not pay unreimbursed employee business expenses of $13,409 during 2007. Petitioners subsequently provided respondent with substantiation for $886 of disallowed medical expenses. Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as previously mentioned. Respondent concedes in the motion that the disallowed Schedule A expenses should be reduced to $17,389 and that the deficiency should be reduced to $2,637 based on the substantiation petitioners provided. The Court set respondent's motion for hearing in Los Angeles, California on October 6, 2011. Petitioners failed to appear. OPINION We are asked to decide whether summary judgment is proper with respect to respondent',s determination that petitioners are liable for the tax deficiency. Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. See, e.g., FPL Group, Inc. & Subs. v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 73, 74 (2001). Either party may move for summary judgment upon all or any part of the legal Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 issues in controversy. Rule 121(a). A motion for summary judgment will be granted if the pleadings and other acceptable materials show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b); Elec. Arts, Inc.. v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 226, 238 (2002). Admissions referenced in Rule 121(b) include deemed admissions pursuant to Rule 90(c). Marshall v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 267, 272 (1985). The moving party has the burden of proving that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See, e.g., Rauenhorst v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 157, 162 (2002). Based on the record,. including the deemed admissions, we are satisfied that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. To reflect the foregoing, a decision will be entered for respondent for reduced deficiency of $2,637 and an appropriate order will be issued granting respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment. THIS CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE. (Whereupon, at 9:21 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888