TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Carrie Virginia Davis
Docket Number: 2938-07S
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 06/09/2008
Pages: 4

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 CARRIE VIRGINIA DAVI S Petitioners, * V. Docket No . 2938-07S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENU E Respondent . * * ORDER I ADM . I R ECORDED L]ft SERVICE ]RI CAL . STAT . -%,*- JUDGE I FILE S Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s 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 of the above case before Judge Joseph R . Goeke at Cincinnati, Ohio, on May 1, 2008, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of trial . In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered under Rule 155 . . (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judg e DATED : Washington, D .C . June 9, 2008 SERVED JUN 1 1 2008 3 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke May 1, 2008 2 Davis v . Commissioner Docket No . 2938-07S 3 4 THE COURT : The Court has decided to render oral 5 Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case and the following 6 represents the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion . 7 The Oral Findings of Fact and opinion shall not be relied 8 upon as precedent in any other case . 9 This Bench Opinion is made pursuant to Sectio n 10 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code and Rule 152 of the Tax 11 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . Section references 12 in this Bench Opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code . And 13 Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and 14 Procedure . 15 This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of 16 Section 7463 in effect when the petition was filed . 17 Pursuant to Section 7463(b) the decision to be entered is 18 not reviewable by any other Court . And this opinion shall 19 not be treated as precedent for any other case . 20 Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to the 21 Petitioner dated January 19th, 2007 . In that notice of 22 deficiency Respondent had asserted a deficiency in income 23 tax for 2005 based upon disallowance of the earned income 24 credit . Respondent has since abandoned the argument that 25 the earned income credit should be disallowed, and no w Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 1 asserts that Petitioner received $17,500 in unreported 2 income in 2005 as a result of receiving an automobile from 3 Borcherding Enterprises, Inc . 4 Respondent agrees that with respect to the ne w 5 issue, Respondent bears the burden of proof . The pertinent 6 facts are as follows . 7 Petitioner suffered from post traumatic stress 8 anxiety . She has heroically worked to overcome thi s 9 condition by working for the disadvantaged through legal 10 research and other efforts to assist unfortunate citizens 11 with legal and governmental administrative problems . 12 She formed a Section 501(c) charitable entity to 13 pursue these efforts before 2005 and this entity was still 14 operating in 2005 . 15 Because of her good civic work and her personal 16 heroism, Petitioner was nominated to be recognized in a 17 promotion to give a vehicle to a worthy citizen . She 18 ultimately became a finalist in that promotion and by lot 19 won a vehicle . She intended that this car be received by 20 her in her capacity as President of the Section 501(c ) 21 charitable organization . But the title was issued in her 22 name only . 23 We find Petitioner's testimony to be credible . We 24 also find that Petitioner's personal use of this vehicle was 25 incidental . Because of her disability she did not leave her Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 5 1 home very often for personal reasons . 2 Respondent asserts that Petitioner has income 3 under Section 74(a) as a result of the receipt of th e 4 vehicle . Petitioner maintains she believed the vehicle was 5 primarily for use in her charitable endeavors . We believe 6 Petitioner's position would provide an exception to Section 7 74(a), either under Section 74(b) or because the vehicl e 8 was, in fact, actually received by the 501(c) charitable 9 entity . 10 This is a factual question, and we find tha t 11 Respondent has failed to carry its burden of proof regarding 12 the application of Section 74(a) . 13 Therefore, a decision will be entered fo r 14 Petitioner but a Rule 155 computation will be necessary to 15 determine the amount of the overpayment allowable to the 16 Petitioner . 17 This concludes the Court's Oral Findings of Fact 18 and Opinion in this case . 19 (Whereupon, at 9 :13 a .m ., the bench opinion in the 20 above-entitled matter was concluded . ) 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888