TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Merlande Romain
Docket Number: 25475-09
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/28/2010
Pages: 4

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 MERLANDE ROMAIN, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 25475-09. 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 the above case before Judge James S. Halpern at New York, New York (Westbury) on September 23, 2010, containing his oral conclusion of trial. fact and opinion rendered at the trial of the pages of the findings of the In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, an appropriate order and decision will be entered. (Signed) James S. Halpern Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. October 28, 2010 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE JAMES S. HALPERN MERLANDE ROMAIN V. COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO.: 25475-09 DATE: September 23, 2010 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 be relied upon as precedent in any other case. 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 and Procedure. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Respondent has determined a deficiency of $5,962 in Petitioner's Federal Income Tax for 2008 and an accuracy related penalty under section 6662(a) of $1,192.40. The deficiency results from an adjustment increasing Petitioner's alternative minimum tax by $5,962. Petitioner assigned error to Respondent's determination of a deficiency on the ground that her calculations show that she owed no alternative minimum 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 tax. The parties have stipulated certain facts. The stipulation of facts, with attached exhibits, is incorporated herein by this reference. Except as otherwise mentioned, Petitioner bears the burden of proof. See Rule 142(a). Petitioner has failed to show that her calculations that she owed no AMT is correct. Apparently, Petitioner erred in how she handled her claimed deductions for investment expenses and home improvements, such items, if they are deductible at all, being itemized deductions deductible on line 23 of her Form 1040 Schedule A and not on line 28 of that schedule. We sustain the deficiency in tax. Section 6662(a) imposes an accuracy related penalty. Section 7491 imposes on Respondent the burden of production with respect to penalties. In his pretrial memorandum, Respondent has made calculations demonstrating a substantial understatement of income, which satisfies his burden of production. A penalty under section 6662(a) is therefore applicable. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. Decision will be entered for Respondent. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202i) 628-4888 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s (Whereupon, at 10:09 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 5 // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888