TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Yakov Kobel & Anna Berkovich
Docket Number: 5079-10
Judge: Marvel
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 06/27/2013
Pages: 20

T.C. Memo. 2013-158 UNITÉD STATES TAX COURT YAKOV KOBEL AND ANNA BERKOVICH, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER ÖF INIERNAL REVENÙE, Respòndent Docket No. 5079-10. Filed June 27, 2013. . Yakov Kobel and Anna Berkovich, pro sese John D. Davis, for respondent. MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF F CT AND O1 INION MARVEL, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners Federal income tax.of $12,408 and $53,030 for È03 and 2006, Yespectively, and SERVED JU 27 2013 - 2 - [*2] accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a)1 of $2,482 and $10,606 for 2003 and 2006, respectively. After concessions,2 the issues for decision are: (1) 1Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) as amended and in effect for the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Monetary amounts have been rounded to the nearest dollar. 2The parties stipulated that for 2003 petitioners are liable for a deficiency in Federal income tax of $242 and are not liable for an accuracy-related penalty under sec. 6662(a). The parties further stipulated that for 2006 petitiohers are entitled to (1) business expense deductions incurred by Mission Trucking of $39,534 and (2) itemized deductions (subject to statutory limitations) of $58,681. The parties represented to the Court at trial that these are the only deductions to which petitioners are entitled for 2006. On brief, however, petitioners contend that they are entitled to additional deductions for 2006. Stipulations are 'generally treated as conclusive admissions. See Rule 91(e). We may disregard stipulations where justice so requires if the evidence contrary to the stipulation is substantial or the stipulation is clearly contrary to the facts disclosed by the record. See Loftin & Woodward, Inc. v. United States, 577 F.2d 1206, 1232 (5th Cir. 1978); CalMaine Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 181, 195 (1989); Jasionowski v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 312, 317-318 (1976). Petitioners, however, have not produced any credible evidence showing that these stipulations are erroneous. Accordingly, we will not disregard the stipulations. Respohdent concedes that for 2006 $55,140 of the deposits into petitioners' Included in this amount are $24,200 that bank accounts were nontaxable. respondent concedes petitioners borrowed from Oresiya Gurzy and $1,500 that respondent co'ncedes petitioners borrowed from Vasiliy Kobel. Respondent further concedes that in calculating petitioners' deficiency he erroneously included $38,000 of petitioners' income reported on Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss, which he had twice reclassified as income reported on Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, in the notice of deficiency. These concessions total $93,140 and are the concessions to which respondent refers in his opening brief. (continued...) - 3 - [*3] whether petitioners had unreported income o $69;592 for 2006; and (2) whether petitioners are liable for accuracy-related penalties under section 6662(a) for 2006. FINI INGS OF FA T .. Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation'of facts is incorporated herein by this reference. -Petitioners, \vho are married; resided in Oregon when they petitioned this Court. L Mission Trucking In 2000 Yakov Kobel started a trucking business named Mission Trucking, which during 2006 he treated as an unincorporated business.* Mission Trucking rented trucks to individuals. Mission Trucking-also charged fees for training 2(...continued) As discussed infra, respondenttdetermined that $162,732 in unreported taxable deposits was deposited into petitioners' b nk.accounts. Thus, after respondent's concession of $93,140, $69,592 re ains at issue. 3Although the parties stipulated.that Missioq Trucking was an.incorporated entity, petitioners have not argued that Mission Trucking operated as a separate taxable entity or that it reported its income and e penses on separately filed , returns. Moreover, petitioners reported Mission Trucking's income and expenses on Schedule E of their joint 2006 Form 1040, U.$. Individual Income Tax Return (2006 return), which respondent reclassified as Schedule C income and expenses in the notice of deficiency. Accordingly, we findlthat for 2006 petitioners treated Mission Trucking as an unincorporated business, and we disregard the stipulation as inconsistent with the preponderance of credible evidence in the record. See Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. at 195. [*4] prospective applicants for commercial driver's license (CDL) tests in its - 4 - trucks. The Immigrant & Refugee Community Organization (IRCO) is an . organization that assists and provides resources to immigrants and refugees new to tlie United States. IRCO oversees an employment support program (IRCO employment program). The purpose of this program is to help new immigrants obtain employment. During the years at issue Mission Trucking rented trucks to individuals enr.olled in the IRCO employment program. Mission Trucking provided receipts to IRCO and received payments from IRCO. IRCO made at least 19 payments by check to Mission Trucking and/or Mr. Kobel during 2006, including 12 payments of $300 each and 7 payments of $250 each. The memo line on many of the IRCO checks states that the checks were for "CDL training" for various persons. As of December 2005 Mr. Kobel owned three vehicles. During 2006 Mission Trucking had a checking account with an account number ending in 1003 (Mission Trucking account) with U.S. Bank. [*5] IL Ms: Berkovich's Childcare Business - 5 - During 2006 Anna Berkovich ran a childcare business. MsfBerkovich had her own bank account with an account number ending in 4068 (Ms. Berkovich's account) with Bank of the West. III. Petitioners' Real Estate Activities . . (cid:16)042 During 2006 Mr. Kobel began building two homes. On March 16, 2007, . petitioners sold the property at 2659 SE 136th Avenue in Portland, Oregon (136th Avenue property). The final settlement statement issued to Ms. Berkovich, who is listed as the seller, states that the following payments,samong others, were made at closing: Payee Oresiya Gurzy Alena Fabrenchuk Anna Berkovich Violeta Koval Yana Berkovich Konstantin Berkovich Lena Romenska Mariya Ziryada David Sheshelnitsky Amount $11,250 9,600 11,450 2,000 7,500 500 1,100 6,000 7,500 IV. Petitioners' Tax Reporting On their 2006 return petitioners reported gróss income of $11,995. Petitioners reported gross receipts of $8,000 and et profit of $8 Ô0 from Ms. - 6 - [*6] Berkovich's childcare business on a Schedule C attached to their 2006 return. Petitioners reported rents received of $38,000, total expenses of $36,200, and total rental income of $1,800 from Mr. Kobel's truck rental business on a Schedule E attached to their 2006. Petitioners reported gross income of $5,000, farm expenses of $2,030, and net farm profit of $2,970 on a Schedule F, Profit or Loss From Farming, attached to their 2006 return. V. Respondent's Bank Deposits Analysis Respondent conducted an analysis of the deposits into the Mission Trucking account and Ms. Berkovich's account. Respondent's bank deposits analysis showed that (1) $151,564 in taxable deposits, including $72,125 in cash, was . deposited into the Mission Trucking account and (2) $11,168 in taxable deposits, including $6,410 in cash, was deposited into Ms. Berkovich's account.4 4The copy of respondent's bank deposits analysis that is in the record indicates that $11,168.98 was deposited into Ms. Berkovich's account. However, the parties stipulated that $11,168 was deposited into the account. We find in accordance with the stipulation. - 7 - [*7] ± OPINION I. Unreported Schedule C Income A. Burden of Proof . Generally, the Commissioner's determination of a deficiency is presumed correct, and thë taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the deterinination is impropér. Rule 142(a)(1); Welch v. Hélvering, 290 IJ.S. 111, 115 (1933). (cid:16)042 However, if a taxpayer produces credible evidende with respect to any.factual issue relevant to ascertaining the táxpayer's liability for any tax imposed by subtitle A or B of the Code and satisfies the requirements of section 7491(a)(2), the biirden of proof on any such issue shiftsito th Commissioner. Seõ. 7491(a)(1). Section 7491(a)(2) requires a taxpayer to demonstrate that he or she (1) complied with requirements under the Code to substantiate any item, (2) maintained all records required under the Code, and (3) cooperated with reasonable requests by the Secretary6 foi'witness s, information, documents, "Crédible evidence is the quality ofevidence which, after critical analysis, the court would find sufficient upon which to base a decision on the issue if no contrary evidence were submitted (without regard to the judicial presumption of IRS correctness).'" Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 442 (2001) (quoting H.R; Conf. Répt. No. 105-599, at 240-241 (1998 , 1998-3 C.B. 747, 994-995). 6The term "Secretary".means the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate. . Sec. 7701(a)(11)(B). [*8] meetings, and interviews. See also Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, -8 - 440-441 (2001). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which an appeal in this case_would lie absent a stipulation to the contrary, see sec. 7482(b)(1)(A), (2), has held that for the presumption of correctness to attach to the notice of deficiency in unreported income cases, the Commissioner must establish some evidentiary , foundation connecting the taxpayer with the income-producing activity, see . Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358, 361-362 (9th Cir. 1979), rev'g 67 T.C: 672 (1977), or demonstrating that the taxpayer actually received unreported income, see Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270-1271 (9th Cir. 1982). If thè Commissioner introduces some evidence that the taxpayer received unreported income, the burden shifts·to the taxpayer, who must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the unreported income adjustment was arbitrary or erroneous. See Hardy v. Commissioner, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999), aff'g T.C. Memo. 1997-97. Petitioners operated and earned income from two busin'esses during 2006, Mission Trucking and Ms. Berkovich's childcare business; and respondent's bank deposits analysis shows that petitioners received income that they did not report on their 2006 return. Respondent therefore introduced evidence that petitioners -.9 - [*9] had income-producing activities during 2006, see Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d at 361-362, and-that petitioners actually received . unreported income, see Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d at.1270-1271. . Accordingly, petitioners bear the burden of proving that respondent's determination is incorrect, unless they demonstra e that the burden of proof should shift to respondent under section 7491(a)., Howe er, the record shows that petitioners did not meet the requirements of section 7491(a)(2). Accordingly, the . burden of proof remains on them. B. Bank Deposits Method Gross income includes "all income from whatever source derived''. Sec. 61(a). A taxpayer must maintain books and records establishing the amount of his or her gross income. See: 6001. If a.taxpayer fails to maintain and produce the required,books and records, the Commissioner may détermine the taxpayer's income by any method that clearly.reflects income. See sec. 446(b); Petzóldt v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 661,.693 (1989); sec. 1.446-1(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. The Commissioner's reconstruction of income "nped only be reasonable in light of all surrounding facts and circumstances." Petzol t v. Commissióner, 92 T.C. at 687. . - 10 - [*10] Petitioners failed to produce business records for Mission Trucking and Ms. Berkovich's childcare business. Accordingly, respondent did not err in reconstructing petitioners' income. The bank deposits method is a permissible method of reconstructing income. See Clayton v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 632, 645.(1994); see also Kudo . v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-404, 76 T.C.M. (CCH) 817, 829 (1998), aff'd, 11 Fed. Appx. 864 (9th Cir. 2001). Bank deposits constitute prima facie evidence of income. See Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). The Commissioner need not show the likely source of a deposit treated as income, but the Conímissioner "must take into account any nontaxable source or deductible expense of which * * * [he] has knowledge" in reconstructing income using the bank deposits method. Clayton v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. at 645-646. However, the Commissioner need not follow any "leads" suggesting that a taxpayer has deductible expenses. DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 858, 872 (1991), aff'd, 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992). After the Cómmissioner reconstructs a taxpayer's income and determines a deficiency, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the - bank deposits analysis is unfair or inaccurate. See Clayton v. Commissioner, 102 . T.C. at 645; DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. at 883. The taxpayer must prove - 11 - [*11] that the reconstruction is in error and may do so, in whole or in part, by proving that a deposit is not taxable: See Clayton v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. at 645. - C. Whether Respondent's Bank Deposi s Analysis Is Inaccurate Petitioners contend that respondent's bank deposits analysis is inaccurate because it includes in petitioners' incomë amounts that Mr. Kobel borrowed to build a home on the 136th Avenue property.in 2006. 1. . Petitioners' Witnesses . a. Vickie Sjoblom Vickie Sjoblom, an employee of Lawyer's Title Go;, testified that it was her understanding at the time that the amounts listed n the final settlement statement for the sale of the home oñ the 136th Avenue property in 2007 were for the repayment of amounts that petitioners had borro d from private parties or for various construction costs. But Ms. Sjoblom als testified that she followed Ms. Berkovich's written instructions and that she did not know which payments vvere for loans and which payments were for construct on costs. b. Mr. Kobel Mr. Kobel testified that various faniily merùbers and friends lent hiin money to finance the construction of a home on the 136th Avenue.property. He - 12 - [*12] specifically testified that, in 2006, (1)Konstantin Berkovich, his brother-in- law, lent him $500; (2) Alena Fabrenchuk, his sister, lent him $9,600;Î and (3) David Sheshelnitsky, a friend, lent him $7,500. None of these people testified at trial. Mr. Kobel's testimony repeatedly contradicted credible evidence'in the record. For example, Mr. Kobel testified that Mission Trucking did not provide CDL training services. However, Mission Trucking received multiple checks from IRCO with memo lines stating that the checks were for "CDL training" and the record generally shows that Mission Trucking provided CDL training services. Accordingly, we do not find Mr. Kobel's testimony to be credible. c. . Violeta Koval . . . Violeta Koval is Mr. Kobel's younger sister. Ms. Koval was a student in 2006. Ms. Koval testified that she lent Mr. Kobel $2,000 in 2006. However, Ms. Koval signed an affidavit on October 31, 2010, stating that she lent Mr. Kobel $10,500 in 2006. At trial she could not recall (1) how much she withdrew.from 7Because Ms. Fabrenchuk was needed to serve as an interpreter in this case, respondent waived his objection to an affidavit she signed on October 31, 2010, stating that she lent Mr. Kobel $9,600 in 2006. We do not, however, f'md Ms. Fabrenchuk's affidavit to be convincing because it contradicts Mr. Kobel's previous statements, as testified to by Special Agent James Nix, that he did not use family loans to build the home on the 136th Avenue property. See infra part I.C.2. - 13 - [*13] her bank account to lend to Mr. Kobel, (2) hen she withdrew the money from her bank account,.(3) how many withdrawal she made from her bank - account, or (4) for what purpose Mr. Kóbel needed the funds that she allegedly lent him. Accordingly, we do not find Ms. Koval s testimony to'be credible. d.. Oresiya Gurzy Oresiya Gurzy is Mr. Kobel's sister. Ms. Gurzy signed an affidavit on December 25, 2010, stating thát'she leñt Mr. Kobel $24,190 in 2006, However, - respondent has since cónceded:that Ms. Gurzy ler t Mr. Kóbel $24,200.in 2006.8. ' e. Mariya Ziryada Mariya Ziryada is Mr. Kòbel'.s sister. Ms. Ziryada testified that she lent,him $6,000 in three installments in 2006 and that he repaid her in 2007. However, Ms. Ziryada signed an affidavit on October 25 2010, stating tlsat she lent Mr. Kobel $12,750 in 2006 and that he repaid her $6 000. Accordingly, we do not find Ms. Ziryada's testimony to be credible. f. Lena Romenska Lena Romenska is Mr. Kobel's sister. Ms. Romènska testified that she lent3 him $1,000 during July ór August 2006 and that he repaid her $1,100. We do not, 8 he affidavit that Ms. Gurzy signed stated that the amount of the loan was $24,190, but respondent conceded on brief that the amount was $24,200. We find in accordance with respondent's concession. - 14 - [*14] however, find Ms. Romenska's testimony to be convincing because it contradicts Mr. Kobel's previous statements, as testified to by Special Agent Nix, that he did not use family loans to build the home on the 136th Avenue property. See infra part I.C.2. g. Anna Kobel Anna Kobel is Mr. Kobel's mother. Ms. Kobel testified that she lent him $1,500 by check in 2006 and that the $1,500 was the proceeds of a tax refund. However, the only $1,500 check deposited into petitioners' checking accounts is a check dated February 2, 2006, from Anna and Vasiliy Kobel's bank account, and respondent has already-conceded that Vasiliy Kobel gave or lent Mr. Kobel-$1,500 in 2006. h. . Ms. Berkovich Ms. Berkovich testified that she borrowed $2,000 from a friend of hers, Luba Frunza, and that she gave the $2,000 to Mr. Kobel to finance the construction of the home on the 136th Avenue property. However, Ms. Berkovich also signed an affidavit.on October 31, 2010, stating that she lent $113450.to Mr. Kobel in 2006. Ms. Berkovich did not testify regarding the $11,450 she purportedly lent Mr. Kobel in 2006 or how she obtained such funds. Accordingly, we do not find Ms. Berkovich's testimony to lie credible. [*15] 2. Respondent's Witness - 15 - Special Agent.Nix testified that when he first interviewed Mr.Kobel on November 2, 2007, Mr. Kobel denied receiving loans for building and selling homes. Special Agent Nix further testified that hen he interviewed Mr. Kobel a second time in December 2007, Mr. Kobel said 11 at his sisters would give him. money if he needed it but that he was unsure whether they had given him any. We find Special Agent Nix's testimony to.be credible. Mr. Kobel's prior statements are admissible as admissions by a partý oppónent. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). We therefore find that Mr. Kobel.did not receive loans from family members or friends in 2006 in amounts greater than responde t allowed. D. Reported Income Erroneously Included As noted, petitioners reported,gross incom of $5,000 on a Schedule F attached to their 2006 return. The unreported inc me adjustment in the notice of deficiency fails to account for this reported amount.9 We therefore find that respondent failed to adjust his calculation of petitioners' unreported Schedule C income to take into account $5,000 of income that petitioners reported on : Schedule F. 9Although respondent represented at trial tl at he would addres this l'ssue on brief, he failed to do so. See Rules 123(a) and (b), 151(e)(5); Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 187 n.6 (2001). [*16] II. Accuracy-Related Penalty Under Section 6662(a) - 16 - Section 6662(a) and (b)(1).and (2) authorizes the Commissioner to impose a 20% penalty on an underpayment of tax that is attributable to, among other things, (1) negligence or disregard of rules or regulations or (2) any substantial understatement of income tax; Only one section 6662 accuracy-related penalty may be imposed with respect to any given portion of an underpayment. New Phoenix Sunrise Corp. v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 161, 187 (2009), aff'd, 408 Fed. Appx. 908 (6th Cir: 2010); sec. 1.6662-2(c), Income Tax Regs. . The term "negligence"- includes any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the internal revenue laws, and the term "disregard" includes any careless, reckless, or intentional disregard. Sec. 6662(c); sec. 1.6662- 3(b)(1) and (2), Income Tax Regs. '"Negligence' also includes any failure by the taxpayer to keep adequate books and records or to substantiate items properly." Sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. Disregard of rules or regulations "is 'careless' if the taxpayer does not exercise reasonable diligence to determine the correctness of a return position" and "is 'reckless' if the taxpayer makes little or no effort to determine whether a rule or regulation exists, under circumstances which demonstrate a substantial deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe." Sec. 1.6662-3(b)(2), Income Tax Regs.; see - 17 - [*17] also Neelv v. Commissioner, 85 T.C 934, 947 (1985). An understatement means the excess of the amount of the tax required to be shown on the return over the amount of the tax imposed which is shownøn the return, reduced by any rebate. Sec 6662(d)(2)(A). An understateñ1ent of income tax is substantial in the case of an individual if the amount of the understatement for the taxable year exceeds the greater of 10% of the-tax required to e shown on the return or $5,000. Sec. 6662(d)(1)(A). The accuracy-related penalty does not apply with respect to any portion of the underpayment for,which the taxpayer shows that there was reasonable cause and that he or she acted in good faith.. Sec. 6664( )(1). The decision as to whether a taxpayer acted with reasonable cause arid in go d faith is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all of the pertinent facts and circumstances. See sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. "Circumstances that may indicate reasonable cause and good faith include an honest misunderstanding of fact or law that is reasonable in light of all of the:facts and circumstances, meluding the experience, knowledge, and education of the taxpayer." Id. . The Commissioner bears-the burden of pro luction with.respect to the taxpayer's liability for the section 6662(a) penalt and must produce sufficient evidence indicating that it is appropriate to impose the penalty. See sec. 7491(c); - 18 - [*18] Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. at 446-447. Once the Commissioner meets his burden of production, the taxpayer must come forward with persuasive evidence that the Commissioner's determination is incorrect or that the taxpayer had reasonable cause or substantial authority for the position. See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. at 446-447. We have found that petitioners failed to report some of their income on their 2006 Federal income tax return. The evidence shows that the resulting underpayment of petitioners' Federal income tax is the product of petitioners' negligence and disregard of rules and regulations. Respondent has therefore met his burden of producing evidence showing that a section 6662(a) penalty for an underpayment of tax attributable to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations is appropriate with respect to the portion of the underpayment resulting from petitioners' unreported income. However, respondent has not produced any evidence showing that petitioners were negligent in claiming deductions greater ^. than the amounts stipulated by the parties. See Barrett v. United States, 561 F.3d 1140, 1147 & n.7, 1148 (10th Cir. 2009) (stipulation of unreported income failed to satisfy Commissioner's burden of production vvith respect to negligence penalty under section 6662(a)). Indeed, because the parties resolved the deduction issues by stipulation, none of petitioners' records with respect to the claimed deductions - 19 - [.*19] were introduced at trial and respondent fail dtto solicit testimony,regarding the state of those records. Respondent even objected to testimony that Mr. Kobel offered regarding petitioners' expenses on the the r that the testimony was irrelevant because the deduction issues were fully resolved by stipulation. Respondent has, theref'ore, not met his burden of roducing evièlence showing that a section 6662(a) penalty for an underpayinent of tax attributable.to hegligence or disregard of rules or regulations is appropriate with respect to the portiorì of the underpayment resulting fron petitioners' erroneously claimed deductions. Petitioners contend that they acted with reasonable cause and.in good faith with respect to the underpayment attributable to their failure to áccurately report their income because they relied on.an experienced;táx return preparer. Reliance on ä tax professional demonstrates reasonable-cause when (1) a taxpayer selects a competent tax adviser, (2) supplies the adviser with all·relevant information, and (3) relles in good faith on the adviser's professior al judgmento See Neonatblogy Assocs:; P.A. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 43,.99 (2000), aß, 299 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002). Petitioners have not produced any crédible evidence showing,that they (1) selected a competent tax return preparer or (2 supplied accurate information to their tax return preparer. Accordingly, petitioners are liable for a section 6662(a) penalty for an underpayment of tax attributable to negligence or disregard of rules - 20 - [*20] or regulations with respect to the portion of the underpayment attributable to their unreported income. See id. Alternatively, to the extent that the Rule 155 computations show that the understatement of income tax exceeds the greater of 10% of the tax required to be shown on the return or $5,000, see sec. 6662(d)(1)(A), respondent has met his burden of producing evidence showing that a sëction 6662(a) penalty for an underpayrhent of tax attributable to a substantial understatement of income tax is appropriate. Petitioners have not produced any credible evidence that they acted with reasonable cause and in good faith with respect to the underpayment. , Accordingly, petitioners would then be liable for a section 6662(a) penalty for an underpayment of tax attributable to a substantial understatement of iricome tax. However, as noted, petitioners will be liable for only one section 6662(a) penalty with respect to any portion of the underpayment of tax. , We have considered the parties' remaining arguments, and to the extent not discussed above, conclude those arguments are irrelevant, moot, or without merit To reflect the foregoing, - . . Decision will be entered under Rule 155.