TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Mohamed Tarawall Conteh
Docket Number: 4839-14S
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 04/02/2015
Pages: 4

PA UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 MOHAMED TARAWALL CONTEH, Petitioner(s), v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 4839-14S ) ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to the determination of the Court as set forth in its bench opinion rendered on March 20, 2015, 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 Lewis R. Carluzzo at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral finding of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. April 2, 2015 SERVED Apr 03 2015 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. 2 Carluzzo 3 March 20, 2015 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mohamed Tarawall Conteh v. Commissioner Docket No. 4839-14S 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 (bench opinion). Unless otherwise noted, section references made in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant period, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. This proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency is a small tax case subject to the provisions of section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175. Pursuant to section 7463(b) the decision entered in this case shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Except as provided in Rule 152(c) this bench opinion shall not be cited as authority. Mohammed Tarawall Conteh appeared on his 25 own behalf. Kristina L. Rico appeared on behalf of 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 respondent. In a notice of deficiency dated December 30, 2013 (notice), respondent determined a $2,500 deficiency in petitioner's 2011 Federal income tax. The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to the education credit or the American opportunity credit claimed on his 2011 Federal income tax return (return). Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. Petitioner resided in Pennsylvania at the time the petition was filed. Petitioner is not married and has no children or other dependents. During 2011 he was employed as a valet by Allied Barton Security. Services. He was not a student and he did not pay any tuition or educational expenses during that year. Petitioner's return was prepared by a paid Federal income tax preparer. The return includes a Form 8863, Education Credits (American Opportunity and Lifetime Learning Credits) showing "refundable" and "nonrefundable" credits that total $2,500 (credits). The credits, which are taken into account in the $2,974 refund claimed on the return are disallowed in the notice. According to the notice, 25 petitioner's "eligible education institution did not 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 verify" the credits. Subject to a variety of conditions and limitations, an individual is entitled to a credit against the individual's Federal income tax liability for qualified tuition and related expenses paid to an eligible education institution. See sec. 25A. 7 Petitioner readily admits that he was not a student 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 during 2011 and further that he paid no such expenses during 2011. That being so, he obviously is not entitled to the credits here in dispute, and respondent's disallowance of the credits is sustained. In closing we think it appropriate to note that consist with allegations contained in the petition, at trial petitioner blamed his return preparer for improperly claiming the credits, and we have no doubt that the blame lies where petitioner places it. The consequences of the return preparer's 19 mistake, however, whether due to a failure of 20 21 22 23 24 25 communication or deviousness, remain with petitioner. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent. This concludes this bench opinion. (Whereupon, at 9:41 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com