TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Tim Kent & Wendi Kent
Docket Number: 14884-23
Judge: Siegel
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/06/2025
Pages: 5

()*  ÿ ÿ&+&",  ÿ ÿÿ ÿ      ! ÿÿ"#$$#%&'  ÿÿ         -./0. ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 22( ÿ ÿ23 ÿ"4&567 ÿ (8ÿ2 ÿ23 ÿ9ÿ (  ÿ( ÿ  2 ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ  ÿ )( ÿ ) ÿ3 !ÿ9ÿ ) ÿ2 ÿ)(33ÿ (: ÿ)  ; )ÿ ÿ   ÿ ( ÿ ÿ    ÿ(ÿ  <ÿ9ÿ ) ÿ (* ÿ9ÿ ) ÿ (  ÿ9ÿ ) ÿ) (*ÿÿ ) ÿ(6 ÿ ( ÿ 6 9 ÿ (3ÿ (3ÿ=2 * ÿ= 9 ÿÿ * 3ÿ( ÿ (: ( ÿ3 ( ÿÿ( )ÿ&+ ÿ&+&4 ÿ  (*ÿ(3ÿ> *ÿ9ÿ9( ÿ( ÿ ÿ   ÿ( ÿ ) ÿ (3ÿ ÿ( ÿ;) )ÿ ) ÿ ( ÿ;(ÿ) (  ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ(  ( ÿ; )ÿ ) ÿ(3ÿ> *ÿ9ÿ9( ÿ( ÿ  ÿ(ÿ ÿ;33ÿ6 ÿ   ÿ9ÿ    ÿ (Signed) Jennifer E. Siegel Special Trial Judge Served 05/06/25 Bench Opinion by Judge Jennifer E. Siegel, Special Trial 3 Judge March 20, 2025 Tim Kent & Wendi Kent v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 14884-23 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 may not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. The oral findings of fact and opinion are made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code and Tax Court Rule 152. Rule references in this opinion are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; section references are to the Internal Revenue Code and its regulations, in effect at all relevant times. By means of this case, petitioners contest a Notice of Deficiency issued to them on July 28, 2023. The Notice disallowed a deduction for moving expenses taken on petitioners' 2020 federal income tax return, resulting in a deficiency of $3,951. Petitioners lived in Florida when the petition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 was timely filed. 25 A trial was conducted in Tampa, Florida on March 20, 2025. Counsel for respondent appeared and was heard. 4 Petitioners also appeared and were heard. FINDINGS OF FACT Petitioners timely filed a joint Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for 2020. On the return, petitioners deducted moving expenses from their 2020 income. Respondent disallowed the deduction, and the Kents timely petitioned this Court in response to the Notice. The material facts of the case are not in dispute. Rather, petitioners contend that the moving expenses they incurred in 2020 were deductible as part of a permanent change of duty station for Ms. Kent's job with the United States Air Force. Although she received official orders, a DD Form 1614, directing her to move, neither she nor Mr. Kent was a member of the military in 2020. Ms. Kent was a civilian contractor for the Air Force. Civilian contractors are not part of the armed forces such that moving expenses were deductible for them 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 in 2020. 21 22 23 24 25 OPINION As a general rule, the Commissioner's determination of a taxpayer's federal income tax liability in a notice of deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the 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 determination is erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. 5 Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Petitioners do not claim, and the record does not otherwise demonstrate, that respondent should bear the burden of proof on the issue in dispute. See § 7491(a). As we have observed in countless opinions, deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving entitlement to any claimed deduction. Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934). As relevant here, a taxpayer claiming a deduction on a federal income tax return must demonstrate that the deduction is allowable pursuant to some statutory provision. See § 6001; Hradesky, 65 T.C. at 89-90; Treas. Reg. § 1.6001-1(a). For many years taxpayers were permitted a deduction under section 217 to cover expenses paid in connection with a move made for one's job. § 217(a). The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 however added § 217(k). Subsection (k) suspended this deduction for 2018 through 2025, which period includes the year at issue, except "in the case of an individual to whom subsection (g) applies." Subsection (g) specifies that "a member of the Armed Forces of the United States on active duty who moves pursuant to a military order and incident to a permanent change of station" may still claim the deduction. 6 This means that only members of the Armed Forces of the United States were eligible to deduct moving expenses from their income during the year at issue. The term Armed Forces of the United States includes "all regular and reserve components of the uniformed services" including "commissioned officers and personnel below the grade of commissioned officers in such forces." § 7701(a)(15). This Court has previously ruled that civilians, including members of the civil service of any military branch, are not entitled to exclusions reserved solely for the military. See § 112; Eram v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-60 fn. 7; Hildebran v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-42 (citing Land v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 675 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (1974)). 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The fact that petitioners' move occurred both during the pandemic and at the direction of the Air Force doesn't permit us to reach a different result. We can appreciate that this is disappointing, but we are obligated to apply the law as written. Decision will be entered for respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.)