TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Shirley Ann Johannes
Docket Number: 18620-10S
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/30/2011
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT 20217 WASHINGTQN, D.C. SHIRLEY ANN JOHANNES, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent . 1 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 18620-10S 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 to petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at Fresno, California, on November 17, 2011, containing his·oral opinion rendered at the above case before Special the conclusion of 'trial. the trial of the pages of the findings of fact and In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for jrespondent. (Signed) Lewis R. Cariuzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. November 30, 2011 §§ 1VED NOV 3 0 2011 3 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo Shirley Ann Johannes v. Commissioner Docket No. 18620-10S November 17, 2011 THE COURT: Th 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, 1 which shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency is a small tak case subject to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 175 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure . This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice & Procedure. Subsequent section references contained in this bench opinion are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for 2008. Shirley Ann Johannes appeared pro se. Melissa Quale appeared on behalf of Respondent. In a notice of deficiency dated July 26, 2010, Respondent determined a $1,805 deficiency in Petitioner's 2008 federal income tax (the notice) . The issue for decision is whether amounts received by Petitioner from the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 State of California are includable in her 2008 income. Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. At the time the petition was filed, Petitioner resided in California. Petitioner was employed as a shift manager for a CVS pharmacy during 2008. The income that she earned from that employment is reported on her self-prepared 2008 federal income tax return (Petitioner's return). During 2008, Petitioner registered as a care-g1ver with the In-Home Supportive Services program administered through the California Department of Social Services (program). The program provides various services to qualifying individuals. According to program' s payroll records, Petitioner was paid $11,734 during 2008 (the disputed income), for services that she provided to an|individual who is now under investigation for fraud (Petitioner's charge) - The disputed income is not reported on Petitioner's return. In the notice, Respondent increased Petitioner's income by the disputed income and the deficiency here in dispute is entirely attributable to that adjustment . Compensation for services constitutes income for federal income tax purposes, and Petitioner does not suggest otherwise. See sec. 61(a) (1); Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 US 426 (1 55) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628--4888 5 She agrees that the checks evidencing the disputed income (more accurately, the net amount of the disputed income) were received and cashed by her. According to Petitioner, however, she did not keep the money, but gave it to her charge. Even if Petitiòner's version of what took place is true, which is highly unlikely, the compensation that she received from program still must be included in her 2008 income. Her explanation might at best suggest that she gifted some of the disputed income to her charge, or at worst, split it with he charge in furtherance of some fraudulent scheme. Either way, she must account for the income, and she is not entitled to any deduction for.amounts that might ultimately have been given to her charge. Petitioner registered as a program,care-giver, she provided services as such, and she was paid for doing so. Respondent's determination that the compensation she received from program during 2008 is includable in her income for that year is sustained To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for Respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and I believe that concludes all of our proceedings that were scheduled for this trial 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 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 session. So with that, Mr. Andrews, thank you for your assistance, Mr. Cecil, thank you.for your assistance, and I this trial session is ad ourned. (Whereupon, at 1:51 p.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888