TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Sandra Jean Dixson
Docket Number: 5250-17
Judge: Kerrigan
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/20/2018
Pages: 5

JRN UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 SANDRA JEAN DIXSON, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. ) ) ) ) ) 5250-17. ORD 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 herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge Kathleen Kerrigan at Denver, Colorado on February 6, 2018, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial session at which this case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered under Rule 155, Tax Court Practice and Procedure. (Signed) Kathleen Kerrigan Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 20, 2018 SERVEDFeb 212018 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bench Opinion by Judge Kathleen Kerrigan February 6, 2018 Sandra Jean Dixson v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 5250,17 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render in this case the following as.its oral Findings of Fact and .Opinion, which shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This Bench Opinion is made pursuant to the authority g.ranted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 10 Revenue Code and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of 11 Practice and Procedure. Unless otherwise indicated, all 12 section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in 13 effect for the tax year in issue, and all Rule references 14 are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All 15 mónetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. 16. 17 18 By notice of deficiency dated February 13, 2017, respondent determined a deficiency of $11,384 for tax year 2014 and a penalty pursuant to section 6662(a) of $456. 19 Respondent conceded the penalty. The only issue for our 20 21 22 consideration is whether petitioner received unreported taxable income of $45,513. Trial in this case was conducted in Denver, 23 Colorado, on February 5, 2018. Petitioner represented 24 herself. Respondent was represented by Michael W. Lloyd. 25 The parties' joint first stipulation of facts was admitted into evidence along with the attached exhibits, and the supplemental stipulation of facts was also admitted. We 4 find the following facts: Findings Petitioner resided in Colorado when she timely filed her petition. Petitioner and her husband filed a joint income tax return for 2014. Petitioner's joint tax return did not report any pension income. Petitioner participated in the American Axle 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Manufa-cturing, Inc. (American Axle), -pension plan. On 11 October 15, 2014, petitioner elected to receive a lump sum 12 13 14 15 16 cash payout from American Axle. She requested that the lump sum be paid directly to her and not to an employer plan or individual retirement account. Her husband consented to the payout. SEI Private Trust Company, administrator of 17 American Axle's pension plan, sent petitioner a 1099-R, 18 Pensions, Annuities, Retirement of Profit-Sharing Plans, 19 IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc. The 1099-R showed a 20 distribution of $45,513 and that the entire amount was 21 taxable. It showed that $9,103 was withheld for Federal taxes. 22 23 24 Opinion Generally, a taxpayer bears the burden of 25 proving that the Commissioner's determinations 5 1 2 3 in a notice of deficiency are erroneous. Rule 142(a)(1); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Petitioner has neither claimed nor shown that she meets 14 the specifications of section 7491(a) to shift the burden 5 6 7 8 9 of proof to respondent as to any relevant factual issue. Section 61(a) provides: "[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: * * * (11) Pensions". (cid:16)042 Petitioner does not dispute receiving the lump sum payment 10 from American Axle. Rather, petitioner contends that she 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 does not need to pay tax on the distribution. Petitioner contends that American Axle withheld too much tax from a previous buyout in 2006. Respondent contends that tax year 2014 is the only tax year at issue. The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. See sec. 7442. We have jurisdiction to redetermine a taxpayer's Federal Tax liabilities in a 18 deficiency proceeding where the Commissioner has a valid 19 notice of deficiency and the taxpayer has timely filed a 20 petition regarding.the notice of deficiency. Secs. 6212 21 22 23 24 and 6213; Rule 13(a) and (c). The notice of deficiency is only for tax.year 2014. The Tax Court does not have jurisdiction to consider other tax years. We conclude that the payment of $45,513 is 25 taxable income. A decision will be entered under Rule 155. This concludes the Court ' s oral Findings of Fact and 6 Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:23 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 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