TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Kimberly A. Kampe Leggero
Docket Number: 8775-09
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 07/01/2010
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON , DC 2021 7 KIMBERLY A . KAMPE LEGGERO , Petitioner COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , Respondent Docket No . 8775-09 . 0 R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 James S . Halpern at, .New York, New York on May 12, 2010, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of, fact, and opinion, decision will be entered under Rule 155 . (Signed ) James S . Halpern Judg e Dated : Washington, D .C . July 1', .2010 SERVED JUL - 2 2010 3 BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE JAMES S . HALPERN LEGGERO V . COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO . : 8775-09 MAY 12, 201 0 4 The Court has decided to .render oral , 5 findings of fact and opinion in this case ., . and th e 6 following represents the Court's oral findings of fact 7 and opinion . The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case . 10 This bench opinion is made pursuant to th e 11 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Internal 12 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the 13 Tax'Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 14 ' . Unless otherwise indicated, all sectio n 15 references are to the . Internal Revenue Code in effect 16 for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to 17 the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . 18 By notice of deficiency dated January 13 , 19 2009, Respondent determined a deficiency of $13,115 in 20. Petitioner's Federal Income Tax for 2005 and a n 21 ' accuracy related penalty under Section 6662(a) of 22 $2,623 . Respondent has conceded an adjustment o f 23 $1,531 resulting from a Schedule E item . . Adjustments 24 relating to the Alternative Minimum Tax and exemptions 25 are computational and we need not discuss them . Lef t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 :' for decision are (1) the adjustment . for mortgag e 2 interest deduction, (2) the Section 6662 .accuracy . 3 related penalty, and (3)Petitioner's'claim o f 4 innocent spouse status . 5 The parties have stipulated certain facts . 6 The stipulation of facts, with attached exhibits, is 7 incorporated herein by this reference . Except a s otherwise mentioned, Petitioner bears the burden of proof See Rule 142(a) . 10 We first find that Petitioner and her the n 11 husband, Ronald J . Leggero, filed a joint return o f 12 income tax for 2005 . Respondent's records show such a 13 return, and we find that a joint return was made by 14; Petitioner and her husband for 2005 . 15 Petitioner testified that she intended to 16 file jointly with her husband for 2005, although she 17 claims she-did not sign a joint return or an IRS Form 18 8799, IRS e-file Signature Authorization : . We think 19 that her intent .to file a joint return governs an d 20 that she joined in the .filing of the joint return 21 whether she signed it or the Form 8799 . or not . See, 22 e .g ., Shea-v . Commissioner, 780 F .2d 561, page 56 7 23 (6th Cir . 1986 ) 24 Petitioner does not'challenge Respondent's 25 disallowance of a portion of the interest deductio n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 ., claimed on the joint return . She argues only that she 2 is entitled to relief from joint and several liability 3 for the deficiency in question (and penalty) unde r Section 6015 . There is ample evidence that Petitioner had actual knowledge of the interest payments giving rise to the deficiency in question, and we so find . That satisfies Respondent ' s burden of proof under 3 Section 6 015 (c) Seil ( C) . Petitioner has not otherwise J75 H 9 carried her burden of showing entitlement to relie f 10 under Section 6015(b), (c) (f) . We~deny her any such 11 relief . 12 Section 6662(a) imposes an accuracy related 13 penalty . Section 7491imposes on Respondent th e 14 burden of production with respect to penalties . 15 his pretrial memorandum, Respondent claims that 16 Petitioner is liable for this penalty because . an 17 underpayment of $13,115 is substantial and Petitioner 18 has not shown reasonable . cause or that she acted in 19 good faith . . 20 While we agree that Petitioner has failed to 21 show reasonable cause or that she acted in good faith, 22 'Respondent has failed to convince us that he has met 23 his burden of production . When we announced that we 24 intended to give a bench opinion and asked the parties 25 for their arguments, Respondent did not specificall y Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 address the penalty nor point to evidence to satisfy 2 his burden of . production under Section 7491 . 3 Therefore, we conclude that Respondent has failed t o carry his burden and we,do not sustain the penalty . This concludes the .Court's ora .I findings. of fact and opinion in this case . Decision will be entered under Rule 155 . THE COURT : Off the record . (Whereupon, at 4 :08 p .m .', the bench opinio n 10 in the above-entitled matter was concluded .) 11 / / 12 13 14 15 / / 16 17 18 1 9 2 0 21 22 23 24 25 // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888