TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Craig Brown
Docket Number: 10753-10
Judge: Vasquez
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/05/2011
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 CZ CRAIG BROWN, Petitioner, v. ) Docket No. 10753-10. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent 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 transcript of Vasquez at Miami, Florida, on March 24, 2011, containing his oral the trial. fact and opinion rendered at in the above case before Judge Juan F. the pages of the the trial findings of the conclusion of In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Juan F. Vasquez Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. April 5, 2011 SERVEDApr062011 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 Juan F. Vasquez March 24, 2011 Craig Brown v. Commissioner Docket No. 10753-10 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. The oral.findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This is the case of Craig Brown, petitioner, versus Commissioner of; Internal Revenue, respondent, docket number 10753-10|. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authroity granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedures. Respondent determined a deficiency against petitioner for his 2001 taxable year in the amount of $2,583.00, an addition to tax under section 6651(a) (1) in the amount of $584.00, and a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty in the amount of $516.60. The facts have been deemed established by order of this Court pursuant to Rule 91(f). We incorporate in this bench opinion the facts so deemed Heritage Reporting Corpóration (202) 628-4888. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 established. At the time the petition was filed, petitioner was a resident of North Miami Beach, Florida. In general, respondent's determinations in the notice of deficiency are entitled to a presumption of correctness, and petitioner bears the burden of rebutting that presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933); Rule 142(a). Petitioner has neither claimed nor shown that section 7491(a) applies in this case to shift the burden of proof to respondent. Therefore, the burden of proof remains on the petitioner. Generally, deductions are a matter of legislative grace; taxpayers have the burden of showing that they are entitled to any deductions claimed. Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992). In the instant case, petitioner claimed on his 2001 Schedule A, Itemized Deductions,,a deduction of $10,859 for unreimbursed employee business expenses. Petitioner failed to provide any documentation substantiating his claimed deduction. See secs. 162; 274(d).1 Petitioner also claimed on his 2001 return a $1,150 Hope Scholarship Credit. See section 25A(b). Petitioner failed to provide any 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 5 documentation substantiating his entitlement to the Hopse Scholarship Credit. Finally, petitioner offered no evidence showing that respondent incorrectly determined petitioner's proper filing status for 2001 or the date petitioner filed his 2001 return. In sum, petitioner failed to offer any evidence that respondent's determinations are incorrect. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's deficiency determination in full. As to the section 6651(a) addition to tax and section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty, section 7491(c) requires that respondent produce evidence that it is appropriate to impose the addition to tax and/or penalty. Once respondent meets his burden of production, however, petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent's determinations are incorrect. Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001). The record shows that respondent has met his burden of production as to the section 6651(a) (1) addition to tax and section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty. Petitioner failed to offer any credible evidence on these issues. Consequently, we sustain respondent's addition to tax and accuracy-related penalty in the amounts determined by respondent. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondenti The foregoing represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. This concludes the case. (Whereupon, at 9:51 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888