TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Thanh K. & Donna T. Tran
Docket Number: 27310-11
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/14/2013
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 THANH K. & DONNA T. TRAN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 27310-11. ) ) ) ) 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 petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Miami, Florida, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered under Rule 155. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. January 14, 2013 GERVED JAN 15 2013 Capital Reporting Company Thanh K. and Donna T. Tran 11-29-2012 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke November 29, 3 2 3 4 2012 Thanh K. & Donna T. Tran v. Commissioner Docket No . 27 310-11 THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the 6 7 8 9 föllowing 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. 10 Th.ù--npinás, i¤! ro,aoroa yreun,e en puln m,g 11 Wlad in thi: 2:22. This opinion is rendered pursuan 12 to Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 13 Procedure and Internal Revenue Code 7459 (b) . 14 Hereinafter, section references are to the Internal 15 Revenue Code in effect in 2009, the year before the 16 Court. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of 17 Practice and Procedure. 18 This case is before the Court pursuant to our 19 jurisdiction to review deficiency determinations by 20 Respondent following the timely filing of a petition 21 after Respondent has issued a notice of deficiency. In 22 the present case Respondent issued a notice of 23 deficiency asserting additional income tax owed for the 24 year 2009 by the Petitioners in the amount of $1,871. 25 The Petitioners timely filed a petition and then (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Repárting Company Thanh K. and Donna T. Tran 11-29-2012 1 amended their petition seeking review of Respondent 's 4 2 determination. 3 4 There are two principle issues, one of which is conceded by Respondent. The issue conceded by 5 Respondent involves a small amount of dividends 6 asserted in the notice of deficiency as additional 7 8 taxable income. Because of Respondent's concession of these dividends a Rule 155 computation will be 9 necessary regardless of the Court's determination of 10 the other issue in the case. 11 The primary issue in the case involves 12 Respondent's inclusion in income of 85 percent of·the 13 Social Security benefits received by Mrs. Donna Tran in 14 15 2009. There is no disputeithat Mrs. Tran received $14,356 from Social Security in 2009. Petitioner's 16 argument as articulated by Mr. Tran at the trial of 17 18 this case is that because:Mrs. Tran had no other income, her Social Security benefits should not be 19 included in income in 2009. He relies upon the 20 instruction in notice 703 which reference a statutory 21 base income amount of $32,000 when taxpayers file a 22 joint return. 23 There is no dispute in the present case that 24 the Petitioners did file ä joint return for 2009 on 25 which they omitted Mrs. Tran's Social Security income. (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 6 ·f Capital Reporting Company Thanh K. and Donna T. Tran 11-29-2012 The base amount of $32,000 is set forth in section 86 (c) (1) (B). Mr. Tran reads that amount as applying separately to the income of each of the parties filing the joint return. His reiading is inconsistent with the 5 code section aa the sense of the statute which has O $32,000 limit for joint return in general. There i n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 provision that the $32, 000 be applied twice; once to 8 9 each spouse filing the joint return. Rather, the $32,000 is to apply to all the income on the joint 10 return. 11 12 13 This is the only issue raised by Mr. Tran and we believe he has simply misread the notice 703. We're sympathetic to his situation because the notice is 14 somewhat vague and doesn't make clear that the $32,000 15 amount applies to the joint income of the spouses. 16 However, the notice, which was entered into evidence 17 18 and which was the basis of Mr. Tran's argument does reference the amount computed based upon total income. 19 Total income, as defined in line C of the notice 703, 20 is not separately stated for each spouse, but rather 21 refers to the total income on the return. Mr. Tran 22 erred in his computation of the Form 703 because he 23 only included the total income of Mrs. Tran, which was 24 25 zero in 2009. Given Mr. Tran's error and the clear (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Thanh K. and Donna T. Tran 11-29-2012 1 statutory language in section 86, we're left with no 2 recourse but to uphold Respondent's deficiency. It is 3 previously stated because of Respondent 's concession 6 that a Rule 155 computation will be necessary. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 9:11 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012