TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Mark O. Rogge
Docket Number: 20358-10
Judge: Vasquez
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/17/2011
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 RMM MARK O. ROGGE, Petitioner, v. Docket No. 20358-10. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent O R D 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 the trial in the above case before Judge Juan F. the to petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of Vasquez at San Diego, California, on September 21, 2011, containing his oral conclusion of the pages of findings of the trial. fact and opinion rendered at the In accordance with the oral findings of the decision will be entered for respondent. fact and opinion, (Signed) Juan F. Vasquez Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. October 17, 2011 SERVEDOct172011 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 Bench Opi ion by Judge Juan F. Vasquez September 21, 2011 Ma k O. R gge v. Commi sioner Docket No. 20358-10 HE COURT: T e Court has decided to render oral findings f fact and o inion in this case, and the following represent the Court s oral findiãgs of fact and opinion. The oral indings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as p ecedent in a y other case. his is the dase of Mark O. Rogge, Petitioner, v. Commissio er c Inter al Revenue Servïce, Respondent, Docket Number 20 58-10 . . Thi bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted . by ection 7459 (d) and Rule 152 . 11 section eferences are to the Internal Revenue Code as in effect for the year in issue, and all Mule referenc s are to the Tax Court .Rules of Practice and Procedur . Respondent d termined a def ïciency against etition r for his .20 6 taxable year in the amount of $9,757, nd an accuracy-related penalty under flection 6662 in the a ount of $1., 951. 40 . Certain fact have been stipulated by the parties. The stip lation of facts is adopted by this reference. At the time the petition was filed, etitioner.was a reside t of San Diego, California. In general, sponde t s determir ations are entitled to a presumption of correct ss, and etitioner bears the burden of rebutting Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 that prestmption by a reponderance of the evidence -- Welch v. Helvering, 290 U. S. 111 (1933) ; Rule. 142 (a) - - unless etitione meets the r quirements of ection 7491(a) . etitioner ha neither claimed the benefits nor met the requi ements of eption 7491(a) and, therefore, the burden of proof remainb cin etitioner. n the instant case, etitioner has offered no credible ubstantiation of his Schedule C expenses nor of his Sched le A employee business expenses to which he claims entitleme t . See Øections 162 and 274 (a) . oreover, etitioner has of fered no credible evli_dence hat shows tl at espondent's determinations are incorrect Accordingly, we find the etitioner has failed to arry is burden of proof . Consequently, we sustain esponden 's determin tions of tax in full. s to the ac uracy-related penalty, etitioner bears the burden of p oof . Rule 142 (a) . Under ection 7491(c), espondent m st produce evidence that it is appropri e to impose a penalty. However, etitioner bears the burde of proof. Higbee v. Commis'sioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001) . he record sl ows that espondent has met his burden of produ tion under ction 7491(c) . Petitioner failed to offer an evidence on this issue. Consequently, we sustain l esponde t's imposition of the accuracy-related penalty. Herita e Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 o reflect th foregoing, decision will be entered $^Í espo dent. fo The f regoing represents the Court's oral f indings f f act and oþinion in this case . his conclude this case . Thank you. Whereupon at 11:34 a.m. , the bench opinion in the above-ent tled matter as concluded. ) Herita e Reporting Corporation (202) 628 4888 UNI ED STATES TAX COURT ertificate o Transcriber and Proofreader Case Dock t No. : 20358-10 Case Name Mark O. Ro ge, Petitioner, vs . Commissioner of Internal . Revenue , Respondent . We, the undersigned, do hereb(cid:0)570certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through inclusive, are the true, acc rate and complete transcript prepared from the tape made by electronic recording by Pämela M. Hollinger, on Wednes ay, September 21, 2011, before the United States Tax Court at its session in San Diego, i Cal.ifornia, in accordanc with the applicable provisions of the current verbatim eporting co tract of the Court, and have verified the accur cy of the transcript by comparing the typewritten transcrip against th verbal recording. W Pegöy Schu ger Transgrib - HRC . Michael J. Williamson Proofreader - HRC Herita e Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .