TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Quincy Elton Price, Sr.
Docket Number: 15161-19S
Judge: Guy
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/13/2020
Pages: 10

ALS UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 QUINCY ELTON PRICE, SR., Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 15161-19S. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) 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 petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above captioned case before Special Trial Judge Daniel A. Guy, Jr., at New Orleans, Louisiana on October 1, 2020, 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, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Daniel A. Guy, Jr. Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. November 13, 2020 SERVED Nov 17 2020 ALS RECEIVED 10/23/20 IN THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT In the Matter of: QUINCY ELTON PRICE, SR., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 15161-19S ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Pages: 1 through 8 Place: Los Angeles, California Date: October 1, 2020 IN THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT In the Matter of: QUINCY ELTON PRICE, SR., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 15161-19S ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Edward R. Roybal Center & Fed. Bldg. 255 East Temple Street Room 1167, 11th Floor Los Angeles, California 90012 October 1, 2020 The above-entitled matter came on for bench opinion, pursuant to notice at 10:11 a.m. BEFORE: HONORABLE DANIEL A. GUY, JR. Special Trial Judge APPEARANCES: For the Petitioner: No Appearance For the Respondent: No Appearance 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 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (10:11 a.m.) THE CLERK: Calling from the calendar, docket number 15161-19S, Quincy Elton Price, Sr. (Whereupon, a bench opinion was rendered.) 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 Cr ners Bench Opinion by Judge Daniel A. Guy, Jr. October 1, 2020 Quincy Elton Price, Sr. v. Commissioner of Internal 3 Revenue Docket No. 15161-19S THE COURT: The 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 be relied upon as precedent in any other case. 11 This proceeding for the redetermination of a 12 deficiency is a small tax case conducted pursuant to the 13 provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code of 14 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 174 of the Tax 15 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 16 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 17 authority granted by section7459(b) of the Internal 18 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax 19 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Hereinafter in 20 this bench opinion, section references are to the Internal 21 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for 2016, and 22 Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 23 Procedure. 24 Respondent determined a deficiency of $5,675 in 25 Petitioner's Pederal income tax for the taxable year 2016 o ners (year in issue) and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $1,135. Respondent subsequently 4 conceded the accuracy-related penalty. Petitioner filed a timely petition for redetermination with the Court. He resided in Louisiana when the petition was filed. Petitioner appeared at trial pro se. John K. Parchman appeared on behalf of respondent. The parties filed with the Court a stipulation of facts, with accompanying exhibits, that is incorporated herein by this reference. The sole issue for decision is whether 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 petitioner, as opposed to his tax return preparer, is 13 14 liable for the tax deficiency of $5,675 as determined by respondent. 15 Background 16 In 2016, petitioner worked as an Uber driver. 17 Raiser, LLC issued a Form 1099-K, Payment Card and Third 18 Party Network Transactions, to petitioner reporting that 19 he was paid $37,992.13 during the year in issue. 20 21 Petitioner provided the Form 1099-K to his tax return preparer, a certified public accountant, who then 22 prepared petitioner's Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income 23 Tax Return, for the year in issue. 24 The preparer attached to the return a Schedule 25 C, Profit or Loss From Business, reporting gross receipts Cnners of $23,955 from petitioner's Uber activity. There is no evidence in the record why total gross receipts reported 5 on Schedule C was less than the amount of receipts reported by Raiser, LLC on Form 1099-K. Petitioner acknowledged at trial that he did not review the return with the preparer before it was filed. Respondent subsequently examined petitioner's return, concluded that he failed to report gross receipts of $14,037, and determined the income tax deficiency in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 dispute. Petitioner alleged in the petition, and asserted 11 at trial, that because he relied upon the preparer to 12 correctly prepare his tax return, the tax deficiency in 13 question should be the responsibility of the preparer. 14 Discussion 15 As a general rule, the Commissioner's 16 determination of a taxpayer's liability in a notice of 17 deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the 18 burden of proving that the determination is incorrect. 19 Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). 20 Consistent with section 61(a), gross income includes all 21 22 income from whatever source derived. It is well settled that as a general rule a 23 taxpayer's duty to file an accurate tax return cannot be 24 avoided by placing responsibility on a tax return 25 preparer. See Metra Chem Corp. v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. . cnners 1 2 3 4 654, 662 (1987), and cases cited in that opinion. Even assuming that all records and data are furnished to the Preparer, the taxpayer still has a duty to read the return and make sure all items of income are properly reported. 5 Magill v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 465, 479-480(1978), aff'd, 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 651 F.2d 1233 (6th Cir. 1981). At trial, petitioner directed the Court's attention to Kelly v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-156. That case does not support petitioner's position. In short, while sympathetic that the taxpayers received poor return preparation services, the Court in Kelly v. 12 Commissioner concluded that was no reason to relieve the 13 taxpayers of taxes which were legally owing and which 14 would have been paid if their return had been properly 15 Prepared. 16 The Court has no reason to doubt Mr. Price's 17 testimony that he trusted and relied upon the preparer to 18 produce a complete and accurate return. Although we 19 sympathize with Mr. Price, the Court is not aware of any 20 authority, statutory or otherwise, that would support his 21 theory in this case. Consistent with the foregoing, 22 decision will be entered for respondent, taking into 23 account respondent's concession of the accuracy-related 24 penalty. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 25 and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 10:19 a.m., the above-entitled 7 matter was concluded.) 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 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER AND PROOFREADER 8 CASE NAME: Quincy Elton Price, Sr. v. Commissioner DOCKET NO.: 15161-19S We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 8 inclusive, are the true, accurate and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Troy Ray on October 1, 2020 before the United States Tax Court at its session in Los Angeles, CA, in accordance with the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 applicable provlslons of the current verbatim reporting 11 12 contract of the Court and have verified the accuracy of the transcript by comparing the typewritten transcript 13 against the verbal recording. 14 15 16 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 n Amy Parnell, CDLT-179 Transcriber 10/14/20 Date Lori Rahtes, CDLT-108 Proofreader 10/14/20 Date