TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Mamdouh F. Elsayed
Docket Number: 11994-17S
Judge: Guy
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 02/01/2019
Pages: 6

SD UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 MAMDOUH F. ELSAYED, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 11994-17S. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ORDER 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 Special Trial Judge Daniel A. Guy, Jr., at San Diego, California, 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, decision will be entered under Rule 155. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall submit computations under Rule 155, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure,¹ on or before May 2, 2019. (Signed) Daniel A. Guy, Jr. Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. February 1, 2019 ¹Petitioner can access the text of Rule 155 on the Court's website at www.ustaxcourt.gov. Petitioner should consider discussing the preparation of the computations with respondent's counsel. SERVED Feb 01 2019 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Daniel A. Guy, Jr. 3 December 12, 2018 Mamdouh F. Elsayed v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 11994-17S 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 This proceeding for the redetermination of a 11 deficiency is a small tax case conducted pursuant to the 12 provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code of 13 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 174 of the Tax 14 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 15 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 16 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 17 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax 18 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Hereinafter in 19 this bench opinion, unless otherwise indicated, section 20 references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 21 amended, in effect for 2015, and Rule references are to 22 23 the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioner resided in California at the time the 24 petition was filed. Shahin Rahimi appeared on behalf of 25 petitioner at the trial of this case, and Phillip A. (973)406-2250|operationseescribersmet|www.escribers.net Lipscomb appeared on behalf of respondent. The parties 4 stipulated to some of the underlying facts. Respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioner determining a Federal income tax deficiency of $8,143 for the taxable year 2015 (year in issue) and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $1,628.60. Petitioner invoked the Court's jurisdiction by filing a timely petition for redetermination. Respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled to dependency exemptions for his two children and a child tax credit. Respondent also concedes that petitioner is not liable for an accuracy-related penalty for the year in issue. The sole issue remaining for decision is whether 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 petitioner was entitled to married filing jointly filing 15 status for the year in issue. That issue turns on whether 16 his spouse, Hend El-Tabee, intended to join with 17 petitioner in filing a joint tax return. 18 19 20 21 22 Petitioner and Ms. El-Tabee married in 2013. They have two children born in 2014 and 2015, respectively. They filed a joint Federal income tax return for the taxable year 2014. Ms. El-Tabee was not happy in her marriage to 23 petitioner, and on February 5, 2016, while petitioner was 24 at work, she left the marital home and took the children 25 to live with her family in Bakersfield, California. The (973)406-2250|operationspestribers.net|wwwascribers.net next day petitioner traveled to Bakersfield to attempt speak with Ms. El-Tabee but was asked by another family 5 to member to leave the premises. Between February 6 and 8, 2016, petitioner and Ms. El-Tabee either spoke by phone or exchanged electronic text messages discussing petitioner's intention to file a joint income tax return for 2015. Ms. El-Tabee testified that she told petitioner that she intended to file a separate return but that she would consent to filing a joint tax return if petitioner provided her with an equal share of the tax refund. Petitioner testified that he told Ms. El-Tabee that he was unfamiliar with Federal tax laws and did not know if there would be any tax refund 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 arising from a joint tax return for the year in issue. 15 16 17 18 On February 8, 2016, petitioner provided his tax records to a third-party tax return preparer who immediately prepared and electronically filed a joint income tax return for 2015. The tax return indicated 19 married filing jointly filing status, .identified Ms. El- 20 Tabee as petitioner's spouse, and claimed exemptions for 21 petitioner, Ms. El-Tabee, and their two minor children, a 22 23 standard deduction of $12,600, an earned income credit of $5,548, a child tax credit of $1,992, and income tax 24 withholding of $432, resulting in a claimed refund on an 25 overpayment of $7,972. cribers $73)406-2250|operationseescriberssiet|vavy,.esdibers.net 7 See Hunter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-164, at *7-*8. In cases in which one spouse has not signed a purported joint tax return, the Court has evaluated that spouse's intent to file a joint return by considering whether he or she objected to the joint return, filed a separate return, and whether prior filing history indicates an intent to file jointly. See, e.g., Estate of Campbell v. Commissioner, 56 T.C. 1, 12-13 (1971); Harrington v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-285, at *8. In the present case, the tax return in question was filed electronically and it does not bear petitioner's or Ms. El-Tabee's original signature. Ms. El-Tabee testified credibly that she told petitioner that she intended to file a separate tax return but that she would consent to file a joint tax return if petitioner agreed to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 provide her with an equal share of the tax refund. 17 Petitioner told Ms. El-Tabee that he could not agree to 18 19 20 share any money with her because he was not sure that there would be a tax refund. There is no objective evidence contradicting Ms. 21 El-Tabee's testimony that she did not expressly authorize 22 the filing of a joint return for 2015. Although 23 petitioner and Ms. El-Tabee had discussed filing a joint 24 return, the Court cannot conclude on this record that 25 there was ever a meeting of the minds to actually do so. EM (973)406-2250|operationseescribersnet|www.escribers.net The fact that petitioner and Ms. El-Tabee had previously filed a single joint tax return for the taxable year 2014 is not evidence of a pattern of conduct that would justify 8 a conclusion that Ms. El-Tabee had somehow implicitly consented to filing a joint return for 2015. Moreover, the fact that Ms. El-Tabee left the marital home with the couple's two children only days before petitioner filed the joint return, and the obvious tensions in their relationship, belies petitioner's suggestion that he reasonably concluded that she had consented to filing a joint return. The record suggests a strained marriage that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 quickly deteriorated into separation in early 2016. 14 Against this backdrop, it is not difficult to comprehend 15 16 17 18 that Ms. El-Tabee had decided to forgo filing a joint tax return with petitioner and instead filed her own separate tax return. Considering all the facts and circumstances, the Court concludes that Ms. El-Tabee did not intend to 19 file a joint income tax return with petitioner for 2015. 20 21 22 It follows that petitioner was not entitled to married filing jointly filing status for the taxable year. A decision will be entered under Rule 155. This 23 completes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion. 24 25 (Whereupon, at 10:51 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 73) 406 2250| operationsoescribetsmet | www.escribers.net