TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Steven Phillip Bowen
Docket Number: 26492-12S
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/29/2014
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20217 STEVEN PHILLIP BOWEN, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 26492-12S ) ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to the determination of the Court as set forth in its bench opinion rendered on May 1, 2014, 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 Los Angeles, 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 for respondent. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. May 29, 2014 SERVED MAY 29 2014 Capital Reporting Company Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo 3 May 1, 2014 Steven Phillip Bowen v. Commissioner Docket No. 26492-12S 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). 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. Steven Phillip Bowen appeared on his own behalf. Robert H. Berman appeared on behalf of respondent. In a noti.ce of deficiency dated September 5, 2012 (notice), respondent determined an $8,811 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 7 Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 deficiency in petitioner's 2006 Federal income tax and imposed a $2,202.75 section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax. The issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioner received the income attributed to him in the notice; and (2) whether petitioner is liable for the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax on account of his failure to file a 2006 Federal income tax return. Petitioner resided in California at the time the petitioner was filed. Petitioner was born in 1966; he was 40 years old as of the close of the year in issue. At all times relevant petitioner was paid by various entities to deliver newspapers, magazines and other peri.odicals. According to the notice, during 2006 petitioner received a total of $33,622 for doing so, and a great 16 majority of that income constitutes income from self- 17 18 employment. See secs. 1401 and 1402. Also according to the notice, during 2006 petitioner received Social 19 Security disability benefits totaling $11,397, of 20 21 22 23 24 25 which $7,019 is includable in his income. See sec. 86. According to respondent's records, petitioner did not file a 2006 Federal income tax return, although his income for that year obligated him to do so. See sec. 6012. According to petitioner, he is not liable for 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 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 the deficiency and he did not have to file a 2006 Federal income tax return for various reasons including, as alleged in the petition, something to the effect that his "pay amount is less than a United States dollar amount". At trial, his testimony made no more sense than the allegations contained in the petition. Respondent's evidence shows a sufficient nexus between the income generation activities referenced in the notice and petitioner. See Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1979), rev'g 67 T.C. 672 (1977). That being so, the determinations made in the notice are presumed correct, and the burden of proof to establish otherwise is on petitioner. See Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933); Rule 142. Petitioner's presentation at trial, to the extent we can make any sense of it, hardly satisfies that burden. Consequently, the adjustments giving rise to the deficiency are sustained, and because petitioner does not claim that he is entitled to deductions or credits not already taken into account in the notice, so is the deficiency. The burden of production with respect to the imposition of the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 is on respondent. See sec. 7491(c). Consistent with respondent's records, petitioner does not claim that he filed a 2006 Federal income tax return. Instead he claims he was not obligated to do so for reasons less than coherently explained. Petitioner has failed to show that his failure to file a 2006 Federal income tax return was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect. See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 447-448 (2001). He is liable for the 10 section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax imposed in the notice. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for respondent. This concludes the bench opinion. (Whereupon, at 10:05 a.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com