TAX COURT OPINION

Case: James & Carrie Footman
Docket Number: 30282-08
Judge: Colvin
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/23/2010
Pages: 4

SU_~' CT &de UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 2021 7 JAMES & CARRIE FOOTMAN, Petitione r v . ) Docket No . 30282-08 . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent O R D E R Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it i s ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge Joseph Robert Goeke at Jacksonville, Florida, on March 9, 2010, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the conclusion of the trial . In accordance with the oral ; findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered under Rule 155 . (Signed ) Joel Gerber Judge Dated : Washington, D .C . March 23, 2010 kv MAR 2 4 2010 10 1 Bench Opinion by Judge Joseph Robert Goeke 2 March 9, 201 0 3 JAMES & CARRIE FOOTMAN Docket No . 30282-0 8 4 5 THE COURT : The Court has decided to "render ora l 6 findings of fact and opinion in this case , and the following 7 represents the Court ' s oral findings of fact and opinion . 8 The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied 9 upon as precedent in any other case . 10 This case involves Respondent ' s deficiency 11 determination for the year 2006 . The case originally 12 included issues whether itemized deductions for.unreimbursed 13 employee expense and tax preparation fees in the respective 14 amounts of $4,812 and $175 were deductible , and. whethe r 15 Schedule A deductions for non-cash charitable contributions 16 of $500 in 2006 were deductible , and whether Schedule A 17 deductions for cash charitable contributions in the amount 18 of $1,877 in 2006 were deductible . The case also included 19 Respondents determination of the additions to tax unde r 20 Section 6662(a) . 21 At trial Respondent conceded the non-cas h 22 charitable contribution and the $175 unreimbursed employee 23 and tax preparation fee as well as the addition to tax under 24 Section 6662(a) . The references to the Internal Revenu e 25 Code herein are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 A 4 1 the year 2006, the year at issue in this case . 2 The remaining issues left for trial are whether 3 Petitioners are entitled to 'employee business expenses i n 4 the amount of $4,812 and cash contributions in the amount of 5 $1,877 . 6 At the time the petition in this case was filed, 7 the Petitioners were residents of Florida . The Petitioners 8 filed a 2006 Federal Income Tax return Form 1040, which was 9 prepared for them by MarcelDelvillar . At trial the y 10 admitted that the return pre' parer had included th e 11 unreimbursed employee expenses in the amount of $4,812 an d 12 the cash charitable contributions in the amount of $1,877 13 without any receipts or discussion with the Petitioners . 14 And the Petitioners both admitted at trial that thes e 15 expense items were not incurred by the Petitioners durin g 16 the year 2006 . Petitioners ; nevertheless maintained at trial 17 that they should be entitled to the deduction in question 18 because they had not instructed the tax preparer to clai m 19 the expense and, therefore, it shouldn't be considered to be 20 their fault that this erroneous expense was claimed on the 21 return . 22 Under Tax Court Rule of Practice and Procedure 23 142(a) the Petitioners bear the burden of proof in this 24 case . This case presents the simple question of whether 25 someone would be entitled to an expense deduction they Heritage Reporting Corporatio n (202) 628-4888 1 claimed on their return through the primary fault of their 2 return preparer as opposed to their own individua l 3 initiative . 4 The case brings to mind a famous quote from the 5 Supreme Court case of New Colonial Ice Company v . Helvering , 6 292 U .S . 435, 440 (1934), "Whether and to what exten t 7 deductions shall be allowed depends upon legislative grace ; 8 and only as there is clear provision, therefore, can any 9 particular deduction be allowed" . Petitioners point to no 10 statutory provision that would allow deduction for amounts 11 that they admit were not actually spent in the year i n 12 question . 13 Therefore, there being no statutory basis fo r 14 Petitioner's claim for these deductions, we are left with no 15 recourse but to deny the amounts in dispute . Give n 16 Respondent's concession a Rule 155 computation will b e 17 necessary which will redetermine the deficiency amount and 18 determine an addition to tax penalty of zero give n 19 Respondent's previous concession of the addition to tax 20 amount . 21 This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact 22 and opinion in this case . 23 (Whereupon, at 2 :26 p .m ., the bench opinion was 24 concluded . ) 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888