TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Theresa R. Wolfgram
Docket Number: 15125-09
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/03/2011
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WA SHINGTON, DC 20217 I THERESA R. WOLFGRAM, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O R D E R Docket No. 15125-09. 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 the pages of the transcript the trial in the above case before IJudge Joseph Robert Goeke at findings petitioner and to respondent a copy of of Tampa, Florida, on October 28, 2010, containing his oral of the trial. fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent . (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. January 3, 2011 SERVED JAN - 4 2011 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 Opinion by Judge Jose h Robert Goeke Theresa R. Wolfgram v. Comm ssioner Docket No. 15125-09 Thursday, October 28, 2010 3 THE COURT: The Cdurt has decided to render Oral Findings of Fact and O inion 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 case is before the Court based upon the Court's jurisdiction to review deficiencies upon the filing of a timely Petition after the Respondent has issued a Notice of Deficiency. In this case two Notices of Deficiency were issued; one for the taxable year 2005 and the other for the year 2006. Both Notices of Deficiency relate to determinations of income tax liabilities and in both Notices of Deficiency Respondent additions to tax under Section 6651 (a) (1) , 6651 (a) (2) and 6654 (a) . This case is before the Court based upon a Stipulation of Facts which as filed by the parties with attached exhibits. Petitioner failed to appear at the call of the Trial Calendar in this case on 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 4 October 25th, 2010 and again at the second date this case was set for hearing on October 29th, 2010. So the record is limited to the facts stipulated by the parties and the exhibits associated with that Stipulation of Facts. This Bench Opinion is rendered pursuant to Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The facts of this jcase are relatively succinct given the limited record. The Petition was filed when the Petitioner was a resident of the State of Florida. She did not file Federal Income Tax Returns for 2004, 2005 and 2006. The year 2004 is relevant to the present case because it relates to Respondent's determination of an addition to tax under Seeben6654(a) for the failure to make estimated tax payments. Respondent prepared substitutes for return for the Petitioner for the ears 2005 and 2006 under the provisions of Section 6020(b). In 2005 Petitioner has stipulated that she received income in the amount of $561,209. In 2009 she stipulated that she received income in the amount of $1,Ê48,916, of which $29,950 was non-employee compensatiòn in 2006. The parties have stipulated that Petitioner had a credit of 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 Federal Income Tax Withhold ng for 2005 in the amount of $1,580, and that she had no other payments or prepayment credits for 2005. The parties have also stipulated that there were e prepayment credits or payments for the year 2006. The Petitioner's dssertions sin the pleadings in this case is that she is entitled to additional expenses that would offset certain amounts of the income in question. We first note that tax deductions are a matter of legislative grace and the taxpayer has the burden of proving that þe or she is entitled to the deductions claimed. Rule 142(a) (1) of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedures INDOPCO Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992). In addition, the Petitioner is required to keep sufficient records to substantiate any claimed deductions. Section 6001 of the Internal Revenue Code. Petitioner has failed to provide any records to substantiate her deductions, nor has she submitted any records to this Court, nor any testimony to this Court to support any additional deductions. There is clearly no alternative but to uphold Respondent's determinations disallowing any additional deductions. Regarding the additions to tax, Petitioner has made no allegations of fact or assignments of 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 6 error in the Petition and she has not asserted any basis on which we could find that she had a reasonable cause for her failure to file income tax returns and her failure .to pay income tax returns. Therefore, the additions to tax under Section 6651(a) (1) (2) are upheld. Regarding the addition to tax under Section 6654. Given the fact that ½etitioner failed to file return for 2004 and that she has made no estimated tax payments for year, Respondent' s determination regarding the estimated tax penalty is appropriate and we uphold that. In accord with th s Opinion a decision will be entered for Respondent in all the matters in the two Notices of Deficiency. This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888