TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Joseph W. Dieck, Jr.
Docket Number: 14415-12
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 01/03/2014
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 JOSEPH W. DIECK, JR., Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 14415-12. ) ) ) ) OR DE 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 the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at New Orleans, Louisiana, on December 19, 2013 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 for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. January 3, 2014 SERVED JAN - 7 20¼ 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 Capital Reporting Company Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke 3 December 13, 2013 Joseph W. Dieck, Jr. Docket No. 14415-12 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 be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This opinion is rendered pursuant to Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and the Internal Revenue Code, Section 7459(a). Hereinafter rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure and section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect in 2008. The burden of proof in the present deficiency case is on the Petitioner pursuant to Rule 142(a) (1). However, based upon the stipulations and agreements of the parties, as expressed in the documentation filed and also the oral statements of the Petitioner and Respondent at the trial, this case was resolved based upon the record of trial, and the application of the burden of proof is unnecessary. This is a deficiency case. It involves the 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 4 5 taxable year 2008, for which the Petitioner timely filed a petition seeking review of the deficiency determination by Respondent in a notice of deficiency issued for the taxable year 2008. In that notice of deficiency issued on 6 March 12'", 2012 the Petitioner was subject to a 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 deficiency determination of $8,174 and an addition to tax of $1,634.80. Subsequent to the issuance of that deficiency determination and a timely filing of the petition by the Petitioner, the Respondent has conceded significant portions of the deficiency determination, such that the remaln1ng deficiency at trial was $3,942, and that the penalty asserted on the notice of deficiency has been conceded by Respondent in full. The issues which remain for the Court's determination are whether Respondent accurately determined the applicability of the alternative 19 minimum tax to items of expense, which the Petitioner 20 originally claimed on Schedule C, and which the 21 Petitioner now believes should have been included on 22 23 24 Schedule A of his 2008 federal income tax return. These items of expense were employee- related business expenses in the amount of $29,193, 25 which Petitioner incurred as a fleet sales manager 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 for a car dealership, of which he was an employee in 2008. The amount of the expenses are no longer in dispute, and the only item that the Petitioner does contest is whether it is fair and appropriate for the alternative minimum tax to apply, which because these expenses were included by Respondent in the computation of the alternative minimum taxes, they were not allowable expenses for purposes of the alternative minimum tax under Section 55 and specifically Section 56(b) (1) (A) (i), which eliminates 12 miscellaneous itemized deductions in the alternative 13 minimum tax computation. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The Petitioner would maintain that the application of this section against him is simply unfair, because of his status as a wage earner. The Court is not in a position to apply equity principles to the application of the alternative minimum tax, and the Court is bound to apply provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, which clearly would require the inclusion of the employee business expenses properly reported on Schedule A, in the alternative minimum tax computation, as these expenses are eliminated as deductible items for purposes of the alternative minimum tax computation. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 The Court has reviewed Respondent's computations of the alternative minimum tax, as outlined in respondent's trial memorandum. The Court finds no error in those computations. Therefore, the Court determines that the revised deficiency reflected in Respondent's trial memorandum, is correct and there is a deficiency in this case in the amount of $3,942. This is not the original deficiency as determined by Respondent, as stated previously, but this amount will be sustained and a decision will be entered for the Respondent in the amount of deficiency of $3,942. A decision will be entered for the Petitioner eliminating any addition to tax under Section 6662(a) relative to that deficiency amount. This ends the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 10:19 a.m., the above- entitled 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 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com