TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Brett B. Simms
Docket Number: 26775-11
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/24/2014
Pages: 6

0 m5 | UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 BRETT B. SIMMS, ET AL., Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 26775-11, ) ) ) ) 28332-11. ORDER 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 cases before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at New Orleans, Louisiana, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the special session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an order of dismissal and decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. July 24, 2014 SERVED JUL 2 8 2014 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke June 12, 2014 3 Brett B. Simms Docket No. 26775-11 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Docket No. 28332-11 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This opinion is rendered pursuant to the authority provided by Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure Number 152, and Internal Revenue Code, Section 7459(b). Hereinafter rule references are to the Tax 16 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure and section 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 references are to the Internal Revenue Code. Before the Court are two separate dockets involving the same Petitioner. These dockets have been consolidated pursuant to Rule 141(a) for purposes of this opinion. The Court has jurisdiction over both of these dockets, which reflect income tax determinations made by the Respondent relative to the 25 Petitioner for the years 2006 and 2007. Our 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com ,. . Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 jurisdiction is based upon Sections 6212(c) and 6213(a). The Internal Revenue Service issued separate notices of deficiency to the Petitioner for the respective years 2006 and 2007, and the 6 Petitioner timely put into the United States mail 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 petition6relative to each of the notices of deficiency, as demonstrated by the dates on the envelopes submitted with the petitions filed before the Court. At the time the Petitioner submitted these petitions he was a resident of the State of Louisiana. The cases are presently before the Court based upon two motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule 53. The motions to dismiss follow a long history, where the Court and Respondent attempted to give the 18 Petitioner every opportunity to substantiate the 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 amounts the Petitioner alleged were properly subject to deduction from his income tax for the years 2006 and 2007. Petitioner has the burden of proof in the present case pursuant to Rule 142, as Section 7491 is not applicable to shift the burden of proof to Respondent. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 With respect to the additions to tax determined by Respondent, Respondent has the burden of production but for the reasons we will explain, Respondent has met that burden of production. Respondent having met the burden of production, the 6 Petitioner then had the burden of proof to show 7 8 reasonable cause to overcome the additions to tax. Both these cases were docketed before the 9 Court beginning in 2011. They were initially 10 continued from the trial session schedule for 11 October, 2012, at the request of the Petitioner. 12 Following that continuance Petitioner failed to meet 13 with Respondent and provide information to 14 substantiate expenses for the years 2006 and 2007, 15 until August and September of 2013. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Based upon Respondent's efforts to assist the Petitioner, Respondent determined that Petitioner was entitled to certain expenses and made adjustments to the deficiency determinations for both the years in question. These adjustments are reflected in the amounts Respondent seeks to have entered in decisions, pursuant to the two motions to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Petitioner failed to show when this case was scheduled for trial most recently on June 11th 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2014, in New Orleans, Louisiana. Petitioner had failed to submit a notice of change of address pursuant to Rule 21(b) (4), and the Court has no reason to believe Petitioner did not receive the notice of trial. Petitioner also ignored previous orders by the Court, suggesting that the Petitioner submit status reports and meet with Respondent prior to the scheduled trial date. After Petitioner's meetings with Respondent's counsel in 2013, Petitioner has failed to cooperate in any fashion as far as the preparation of this case and the submission of information that 14 might substantiate deductions. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Petitioner failed to timely file income tax returns for both 2006 and 2007, and this is the primary basis for Respondent's determinations of additions to tax. Respondent has conceded Petitioner is not liable for the estimated tax penalty for 2006 and had adjusted the additions to tax to reflect the changes in the deficiency determinations based upon the amounts Respondent allowed after efforts to meet 23 with the Petitioner in 2013. 24 25 Regarding the additions to tax, Respondent's motions contain certified transcripts, 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 2 which demonstrate that Petitioner failed to timely file federal income tax returns for 2006 and 2007 3 h e failed to pay liabilities associated with those 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 two returns. Because of the information Respondent had aGr1Tted relative to 2006, Respondent has also demonstrated that the Petitioner is liable for the estimated tax penalty for 2007, and that is asserted in Respondent's motion to dismiss relative to the year 2007. Given the Petitioner's total lack of cooperation in the last six months as far as the preparation of this case or the submission of additional documentation the additional deductions or reductions in taxable income, we have no choice but to grant Respondent's motions, and we 17 will enter decisions in each of the dockets in accord 18 with the amounts of the deficiencies and additions to 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tax under Sections 6651(a)(1), 6651(a)(2) and 6654, as set forth in Respondent's respective motions for the years 2006 and 2007. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:28 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com