TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Karin Martincic f.k.a. Karin Paulina Aldana
Docket Number: 14354-10S
Judge: Kroupa
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/01/2011
Pages: 6

UNlTED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 KARIN MARTINCIC F . K. A . KARIN PAULINA· ALDANA, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER ÓF INTERNAL REVENUE, Re spondent . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) O!R.D E R Docket No. 14354-10S Pursuant to Rule 152 (b) , Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of. the Court shall' transmit the petitioner and to respondent a copy of transcript of Diane L. Kroupa at Phoenix, Arizona, on October 19, 2011, containing her oral findirigs of fact and opinion. the proceedings of the above case before Judge the pages of to In accordanc with the oral findings of fact and op1nlon, decision will be antered for r pondent. (Signed) Diane L. Kroupa udge Dated: Washington, D. C. 2011 November 1 SERVED NOV a 201 1 Bench Opi ion by Judge Diane L. Kroupa October 19, 2011 2 Martincic v. Commissioner Docket No. 14354-10S 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 T E COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings f Fact and Opinion in this case and the following represents the Court's oral findings of Fact and Opini n. These oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. Th s proceeding was heard as a small tax case pursuant o the provisions of section 7463 and Rules 170 through 1 5. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459 (b) and Rule 152 . All section r ferences are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended a d in effect for 2008 and all Rule references are to th Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . Th s is a deficiency case involving the first-time homebuyer credit. Petitioner appeared pro se and Greg 17 Marble appeared on behalf of respondent. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 FINDINGS OF FACT Ce tain facts are stipulated. The stipulation of facts, wit2 accompanying exhibits, are incorporated by this referance. The facts are so found. Pet itioner resided in Arizona at the time she filed the Jetition. In the spring of 2009, Richard Martincic (Mr. 25 Martincic) purchased a home on East Dogwood Drive in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 Chandler, Arizona (the home).. Peti,tioner alleges that 2 3 4 she and Mr. Martincic,.her ·fiancé at the time, purchased the home together. Petitioner has not provided documentation showing the purchase price 3of the home. 5 Only Mr. Martincic's name was on the mortgage.and the 6 7 8 title at t:he time of purchase because petitioner had lost her job and could not qualify for the loan. Shortly.after obtaining a marrlage license, Mr; 9 Martincic conveyed the home to himself and to petitioner 10. as unmarried, individual joint tenants with rights of 11 12 survivorship. Petitioner did not pay her fiancé for the conveyance and was not subsequently named on the 13 mortgage. She did, however, make two payments to the 14 mortgage company with respect·to the home when Mr. 15 Martincic lost his job. Petitioner and Mr. Martincic 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 were married shortly after.the conveyance, in November 2009. Mr. Martincic did not qualify for the first-time homebuyer credit with respect to the home as he previously owned another principal residence. Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for 2008 as a single individual, claiming a first-time homebuyer credit of $8,.000. Respondent disallowed the homebuyer credit and issued a deficiency notice to petitioner determining a 25. deficiency in Federal income tax. Petitioner timely Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 filed a petition with this Court. At trial, petitioner told the Court that she and Mr . Martincic were engaged when he . purchased the home and they had always intended to own the home together. She thought tlgat the.homebuyer credit was án assistance hoù/E., program for whi'ch. she qualified, and which would allowed them to stay in the home .a bit longer. They sold the home in 2010 for financial reasons. OPINION We are asked whether respondent: properly denied petitione from claiming the first-time homebuyer credit. We begin v3ith fundamental principles of tax litigation. 13 First, the Commissioner's .determinations are generally 14 15 16 presumed correct, and the taxpayer beafs the burden of proving that those determinations are erroneous . Rule 142 (a) . This includes . the ,burden of substantiation. 17 Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T . C. . 87, 89-90 (1975) , af fd. 18 19 20 21 per curian 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976) . The Court need n.ot accept1 a taxpayer's self-serving testimony when the taxpayer ails to present other probative evidence. Beam v. Commiseioner, T.C Memo. 1990-304 (citing Tokarski v. 22 Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986)) C d. W D e o r\'iorg lo E2cf Glolo (.,3%iCtF. 1°Fl2.). Ge erally, a refundable tax credit is allowed to a 23 24 first-time homebuyer of a principal residence in the 25 United States . Sec. 36 (a) , (b) . The first-time Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6 1 2 3 homebuyer credit. for the purchase of a principal residence in 2009 may be claimed on either the taxpayer's 2008 or 2009 Federal income tax return. Sec. 36 (g) . The .4 amount of the tax credit. is 10 percent of the purchase 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 price of the residence; with a limitation of $8, 000 . Sec . 36 (a) , (b) (1) (A) .1 Petitioner has not proven that she purchased a residence c For Federal income tax purposes, the term "sale" is given its ordinary meaning and is generally defined as a transfer of property for money or a promise to pay mor ey. See Commissioner v. Brown, 380 U. S. 563, 570 -571 (1965) . Petitioner has not pròven, or even asserted, that she paid any money or promised to pay any 14 money in exchange for acquiring an interest in the home. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Sh ot demonstrated the purchase price of the hone. As the first-time homebuyer credit is calculated as a percentage of the purchase price of the residence, petitioner cannot receive a credit if she fails to eatisfy her burden of proving . the purchase price she paid. Sec. 36(a). Evèn if petitioner qualified for the credit, she 22 would need to recapture the credit as she and Mr. 23 Martincic sold the home in 2010 and therefore did not 24 25 "own" the home for the reqùisite period. Sec. 36(f) (2), (f) (4) (D) (ii) . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 2 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P titioner has failed to satisfy her burden of proving t at she qualifies for the first-time homebuyer credit . ccordingly, we sustain respondent ' s disallowa ce of the $8,000 first-Èime homebuyer credit as claimed o petitioner's 2008 Federal income tax return. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respo dent. TH S CONCLUDES THE COURT'S ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINI N IN THIS CASE. (W e reupon, at 9 : 25 a . m . , the bench opinion in the above-ent tled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // //. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888