TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Mark S. Polak, Petitioner and Marilyn Polak, Intervenor
Docket Number: 22823-18S
Judge: Leyden
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 11/18/2020
Pages: 23

SR UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 MARK S. POLAK, PETITIONER AND MARILYN POLAK, INTERVENOR, Petitioners, v. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 22823-18S. 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 Diana L. Leyden at Tampa, Florida, on November 13, 2020, containing her oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings offact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Diana L. Leyden Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. November 18, 2020 SERVED Nov 18 2020 RECEIVED 11/16/20 IN THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT SR In the Matter of: ) MA R K S. POLAK, ) Docket No. 22823-18S Petitioner, Intervenor, ) ) ) ) And MARILYN POLAK, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Pages: 1 through 21 Place: Tampa, Florida (Remote Proceeding) Date: November 13, 2020 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 IN THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT In the Matter of: ) MAR K S. POLAK, Petitioner, ) Docket No. 22823-18S ) ) And MARILYN POLAK, v. ) ) ) Intervenor, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. Timberlake Federal Annex 501 East Polk Street Room 1201, 12th Floor Tampa, Florida 33602 (Remote Proceeding) November 13, 2020 The above-entitled matter came on for bench opinion, pursuant to notice at 11:21 a.m. BEFORE: HONORABLE DIANA L. LEYDEN Special Trial Judge APPEARANCES: For the Petitioner: No Appearance For the Respondent: No Appearance 97§ )4062250 epwatième erribecuíat j www.escribersmet P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (11:21 a.m.) THE CLERK: Recalling from the calendar docket number 22823-18S, Mark S. Polak, petitioner, and Marilyn Polak, intervenor. (Whereupon, a bench opinion was rendered) 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 miums (973)4%G 250 i o persticés@es:iihertnet j www esaibennet Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Diana L. Leyden 3 November 13, 2020 Mark S. Polak, Petitioner and Marilyn Polak, Intervenor v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Docket No. 22823-18S THE COURT: THE COURT HAS DECIDED TO RENDER ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION IN THIS CASE, AND THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE COURTS ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION. THE ORAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION SHALL NOT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BE RELIED UPON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. See Rule 11 12 152(c), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This section 6015(e) proceeding was heard as a 13 Small Tax Case pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 14 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and 15 Rules 170 through 174 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice 16 17 and Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 18 authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal 19 Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax 20 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 21 22 23 24 25 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, all section numbers refer to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended and in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule numbers refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Court uses the term "IRS" to refer to EERIE administrative actions taken outside of 4 these proceedings. The Court uses the term "respondent" to refer to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is the head of the IRS, and is respondent in this case, and to refer to actions taken in connection with this case. The trial of this case was conducted on November 10, 2020, in the remote Trial Session for Tampa, Florida. Petitioner appeared on his own behalf. Intervenor appeared on her own behalf. Miriam Dillard appeared on 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 behalf of respondent. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 In a letter dated September 14, 2018, the IRS issued its final determination to petitioner that his request for section 6015(c) relief for understated 2013 joint income tax liability was partially allowed and his request for section 6015(f) relief for underpaid 2015 and 2016 joint income tax liabilities was denied. Petitioner seeks review of this final determination. 18 Background 19 20 21 22 23 24 Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so found. Petitioner resided in Florida at the time that the petition was filed with the Court. Intervenor resided in Florida at the time her Notice of Intervention was filed. Petitioner and Intervenor married one another on 25 May 15, 2006, and divorced on August 9, 2018. During the EEElB 5 tax years in issue, 2013, 2015 and 2016, petitioner worked as a correctional officer and intervenor was a registered nurse. Petitioner and intervenor signed a Prejudgment Agreement on July 19, 2018. That agreement does not indicate who was responsible for joint income tax liabilities. The Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida Family Law Division entered a Final Judgment of Dissolution of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Marriage With No Property or Dependent or Minor Child(ren) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Uncontested) on August 9, 2018. The final judgment did not reference the joint income tax liabilities or who was responsible for paying them. Petitioner and intervenor filed timely joint tax returns for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2016 showing balances due as follows. Tax Year Balance due 2009 2010 2011 2012 2015 2016 $1,439 $4,076 $3,354 $6,566 $10,090 $7,251 Both petitioner and intervenor were aware of the balances due. Petitioner was aware that intervenor took steps to enter into installment agreements to pay off the balances. 6 Petitioner and intervenor filed a joint Federal tax returns for 2013 and 2014 showing an overpayment. The IRS applied the overpayment reported on the joint 2013 tax return to the petitioner's and intervenor's joint 2011 tax liability and the overpayment reported on the joint 2014 tax return to petitioner's and intervenor's joint 2011 and 2012 tax liabilities. Petitioner knew that in 2013 a lender had 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 written off part of a debt he had incurred and both 11 petitioner and intervenor were aware that during 2015 and 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2016 they had fallen behind in their mortgage payments and they had been unsuccessful in seeking a modification of the mortgage payments. 1. 2013 For 2013 petitioner and intervenor timely filed a joint income tax return reporting intervenor's wages totaling $109,116, net business loss of $17,968 from intervenor's business of "Nurse Staffing", petitioner's annuity of $3,902, and intervenor's gambling winnings of $3,329 and gambling losses of same amount. On the 2013 joint tax return petitioner and intervenor reported a tax liability of $10,816, Federal income tax withholding of $8,506, a credit of $2,963 and an overpayment of $653. After the 2013 joint tax return was filed and 7 after the overpayment reported on that return was applied to the petitioner's and intervenor's 2011 joint tax liability, the IRS audited petitioner's and intervenor's joint 2013 tax return through its automatic underreporter program and determined that petitioner had not reported cancellation of debt of $8,309 and intervenor had not reported retirement income totaling $41,537. The IRS issued a Form CP 2000 and proposed to determine there was a deficiency due to the unreported income, that petitioner and intervenor were not entitled to claim a mortgage interest deduction of $2,743, petitioner and intervenor had underreported Federal income tax withholding by $4,765 and had overreported excess Social Security and RRT tax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 withheld by $2,963. The IRS proposed a deficiency in the 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 amount of $13,142 and an accuracy-related penalty for substantial understatement of $2,268. On the Form CP 2000 in the box titled "1. Indicate your agreement or disagreement" the box titled "I agree with the changes" was checked and both petitioner and intervenor signed on the signature lines below that box. In the box titled "2. Indicate your payment option" the box "no payment" was checked and the following was 23 written in: "Please Add to 2012 payment plan paid every 24 month on the 28th ($150)". 25 The IRS assessed the additional tax of $13,142 (973)4064250ioperations@erribers.netJwwwascribennet 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 and accuracy-related penalty of $2,268 on September 7, 2015. 2. 2015 Petitioner and intervenor filed a joint income tax return for 2015 on June 6, 2016, showing a balance due of $10,090. On the same day the IRS assessed a "penalty for not pre-paying tax" of $73 and a "penalty for late payment of tax" of $100.90 and interest of $57.50 and issued petitioner and intervenor a Notice CP 14 dated June 6, 2016. An installment agreement was requested on June 20, 2016, and it was approved and established by the IRS on August 27, 2016. Payments toward the balance due for 2015 were posted from August 28, 2018 through July 2019 because the payments made under the installment agreement before August 28, 2018, were first credited by the IRS to the balances due for prior years. 3. 2016 Petitioner and intervenor electronically filed a joint income tax return for 2016 on October 30, 2017. That tax return showed a balance due of $7,409. The IRS assessed a "penalty for not pre-paying tax" of $158, "Penalty for late payment of tax" of $326.29 and interest of $204.66 on December 25, 2017. An installment agreement was established on July 3, 2018, but the record does not show that any installment payments were made toward the 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2016 tax balance. 4. R oye_Relief Petitioner filed a Form 8857, Request for Innocent Spouse Relief, which the IRS received on January 23, 2018. On the Form 8857 petitioner requested innocent spouse relief for 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. At the time petitioner filed the Form 8857 there was not any joint income tax liability for 2012 or 2014. Intervenor filed a Form 12508, Questionnaire for Non-Requesting 10 Spouse, which the IRS received on March 12, 2018, opposing 11 petitioner's request for innocent spouse relief. 12 The IRS issued a preliminary determination dated 13 May 4, 2018, with respect to the 2013 and proposed to 14 15 16 17 18 grant petitioner relief under section 6015(c) of $9,149 as to the income tax deficiency and to deny relief for $2,191 as to the deficiency. The preliminary determination does not mention allocation of the accuracy-related penalty for 2013. The record does not explain why the total 19 deficiency allocated between petitioner and intervenor was 20 21 22 23 24 25 less than the deficiency assessed, $13,142. The IRS also issued a preliminary determination, dated May 4, 2018, and proposed to deny relief under section 6015(f) for both 2015 and 2016, based on its finding that petitioner did not have a reasonable expectation that the tax would or could be paid by intervenor. (973340022501operatices@escrkersnetj wwwmcribenast Petitioner filed a Form 12509, Innocent Spouse 10 Statement of Disagreement, dated May 23, 2018, and intervenor also filed a Form 12509, Innocent Spouse Statement of Disagreement, also dated May 23, 2018. Petitioner appealed the IRS' preliminary determinations by filing a Form 12203, Request for Appeals Review dated August 23, 2018. The IRS Appeals Office scheduled a telephone conference with petitioner to discuss his appeal and sent a letter to intervenor informing her that she had a right to participate in the appeal and advised her to provide additional information. The IRS Appeals Office Appea-la Of-f-ice applied DLL the factors listed in Rev. Proc. 2013-34 and determined that the factors of marital status, economic hardship, legal obligation, mental or physical health were neutral, that significant benefit was neutral for 2015 and 2016, but favorable for 2013, and that the factors of knowledge or reason to know was favorable for 2013 but unfavorable for 2015 and 2016. The IRS Appeals Office sustained the IRS' preliminary determination. The Appeals Officer proposed an allocation of the 2013 tax liability of $13,142, $10,951 to the intervenor and $2,191 to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 petitioner, and as to the accuracy-related penalty of 24 25 $2,268, $1,830 to the intervenor and $438 to petitioner. The Appeals Office also determined that relief under 73) 406 2250 ? operations@ercrketsmet | wwwmcúbersnet section 6105(f) be denied for 2015 and 2016. The IRS Appeals office issued a notice of determination dated 11 September 14, 2018, that determined that petitioner should be allowed partial innocent spouse relief for the understatement of tax for 2013, but be denied innocent SPouse relief for the underpayment of tax for both 2015 and 2016. Petitioner filed a petition with the Court with respect to that notice of determination. Discussion The Court now turns now to the substantive law. In general married taxpayers may elect to file a joint Federal income tax return. See sec. 6013(a). After 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 making the election, each spouse is jointly and severally 14 15 16 17 18 19 liable for the entire amount of tax reported on the return, as well as for the liability of any deficiency subsequently determined, even if all of the items giving rise to the tax liability is allocable to only one of them. See sec. 6013(d)(3); Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 188 (2000), aff'd, 282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002); 20 Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 276, 282 (2000); sec. 21 22 23 24 25 1.6013-4(b), Income Tax Regs. This Court has jurisdiction to review respondent's denial of petitioner's request for equitable relief under Section 6015(c) and ( f ). See sec. 6015(e) (1). The petition in this case was filed before $73) 406-2250| opmtionsøerentennet t wwvcescribenaet July 1, 2019, 12 so section 6015(e) (7) which limits the scope of review to the administrative record and any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence does not apply to this case. See Sutherland v. Commissioner, 155 T.C., (slip op. at 4) (Sept. 8, 2020). Because section 6015(e) (7) does not apply the Court applies a de novo standard of review as well as a de novo scope of review. See Porter v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 203, 210 (2009). Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish he is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | 10 entitled to relief under section 6015 (c), and (f). Rule 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 142; sec. 6015(c) (2); Alt v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 306, 311 (2002), aff'd, 101 Fed. Appx. 34 (6th Cir. 2004). Under section 6015(c), relief is available only from an understatement of tax or deficiency and not with respect to an underpayment of income tax reported on a joint return. , 121 T.C. 73, 88 (2003). If relief is not granted under section 6015(c) a taxpayer may request equitable relief from an understatement of tax under section 6015(f). When the liability arises from an underpayment of tax reported as due on the return, relief is available only under section 6015(f). Id.; Boyle v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2016-87, at *7. Petitioner has requested relief for 2013 under section 6015(c) with respect to an understatement of tax and in the alternative, equitable g973)4½2250 operabon escribergnet }www_escnbersaet relief with respect to the understatement under section 6015(f). Petitioner has requested relief for 2015 and 2016 under section 6015(f) with respect to an underpayment 13 of tax. 1. 2013 a. Section 6015(c) Under section 6015(c), a divorced or separated spouse may elect to limit liability for a deficiency on a joint return to the portion of the deficiency allocable to him or her under subsection (d). The election may be filed at any time after the deficiency is "asserted" but not later than two years after the Secretary has begun collection activities. Sec. 6015(c) (3) (B). The electing individual: (1) must no longer be married to or must be legally separated from the individual with whom the joint return was filed or (2) must not have been a member of the same household with the individual with whom the joint return was filed during the 12-month period before the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 election was filed. sec. 6015(c) (3) (A) (i). The parties 20 21 22 23 24 do not dispute that taxpayer is eligible to elect relief under section 6015(c). However, section 6015(c) allows a taxpayer who is eligible for innocent spouse relief to limit his liability to the portion of the liability that is properly 25 allocable to him as provided in section 6015(d). t9733406-2250ioperationseescribetsnet|wwwesaibersaat 14 Petitioner cannot be granted relief for understatements that are attributable to his own unreported income. See Hopkins v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. at 77. In this case, petitioner testified that the canceled debt was debt he owed. The raS in its notice of determination granted relief to petitioner for the remaining liability that it found was allocable to unreported income of intervenor. Therefore, the Court agrees with respondent that under section 6015(c) petitioner's relief from joint liability is limited to the portion of the tax liability allocable to the unreported income of intervenor and petitioner is not eligible for any relief from the tax allocable to his unreported canceled debt. The Court also agrees with respect to the allocation of the accuracy-related penalty. (b) Section 6015(f) Having determined that petitioner is not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 entitled to relief under section 6015(c) for 2013 with 18 19 respect to the cancellation of debt, which is his erroneous item, the Court considers whether petitioner is 20 entitled to equitable relief from the understatement with 21 respect 6015(f) DLL to his erroneous item under section 6kO5(f). See 22 Capehart v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-268, aff'd, 204 23 24 25 Fed. Appx. 618 (9th Cir. 2006). Under Revenue Procedure 2013-34 equitable relief from an erroneous item of the requesting spouse depends on 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 the following factors: (1) is the erroneous item attributable to the requesting spouse in full or in part because of the application of community property law; (2) is the erroneous item only nominally owned by the requesting spouse (e.g., because the nonrequesting spouse titled the item in the name of the requesting spouse); (3) did the requesting spouse did not know or did have reason to know that funds intended for payment of tax were 9 misappropriated by the nonrequesting spouse for the 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 nonrequesting spouse's benefit; (4) did the requesting spouse establish that he was the victim of abuse prior to the time the tax return was filed; or (5) did the requesting spouse establish that the nonrequesting spouse committed fraud which was the reason for the erroneous item. Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec. 4.01(7), 2013-43 I.R.B. 397, 399-400. Petitioner has not proven that any of those factors apply here. Thus, the Court concludes that in the 18 alternative, petitioner is not entitled to relief under 19 section 6015(f) from the tax on his erroneous items or on 20 21 22 23 24 25 the accuracy-related penalty allocated to him. 2. 2015 and 2016 If a joint income tax liability arises from an underpayment of joint income tax, a spouse may be relieved of the unpaid joint liability if he proves it is inequitable to hold him liable for unpaid tax for purposes of section 6015(f), the Court has applied the rules set forth by the IRS in Revenue Procedure 2013-34. See Rev. 16 Proc. 2013-34, 2013-43 I.R.B. 397. Under the revenue procedure, the spouse must first meet seven threshold requirements for relief: (1) The requesting spouse filed a joint return for the year for which he seeks relief; (2) relief is not available to the requesting spouse under section 6015(b) or (c); (3) the claim for relief is timely; (4) no assets were transferred between the spouses as part of a fraudulent scheme by the spouses; (5) the nonrequesting spouse did not transfer disqualified assets to the requesting spouse; (6) the requesting spouse did not knowingly participate in the filing of a fraudulent joint return; and (7) the income tax liability from which the requesting spouse seeks relief is attributable in full or in part to an item of the nonrequesting spouse or an underpayment resulting from the nonrequesting spouse's income, ee Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec. 4.01, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 399. The parties do not dispute that petitioner has met the 7 requirements. The revenue procedure lays out three streamlined conditions that, if fulfilled, will result in relief under section 6015(f). Those conditions are that: (1) the requesting spouse is no longer married to the nonrequesting spouse when the Commissioner makes his 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 73)4064250!opentisseawsasronet!wav¢esabnaa determination; (2) the requesting spouse would suffer economic hardship if relief were not granted; and (3) the requesting spouse did not know or have reason to know of the understatement or underpayment. Rev. Proc. 2013-34, 17 sec. 4.02, 2013-43 I.R.B. at 400. Based on the record and the testimony at trial petitioner has not proven that he would suffer an economic hardship nor has he proven that he did not know or not have reason to know that the tax shown as due on both the 2015 and 2016 joint tax returns would have been paid. A requesting spouse who satisfies the threshold conditions but not the streamlined conditions may still 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 qualify for relief under the facts and circumstances test. 14 Rev. Proc. 2013-34, sec. 4.03(2), 2013-43 I.R.B. at 400- 15 16 403, sets forth seven nonexclusive factors to be considered in determining whether a requesting spouse is 17 entitled to equitable relief under section 6015(f): (1) 18 marital status; (2) economic hardship; (3) knowledge or 19 reason to know that the tax liability would not be paid; 20 21 22 23 24 (4) legal obligation to pay the outstanding income tax liability; (5) receipt of a significant benefit from the unpaid income tax liability; (6) compliance with the income tax laws; and (7) the mental or physical health of the requesting spouse. All of these factors are to be 25 weighted appropriately, and no one factor is 5E5B|| (9733406-2250ioperationsgescribetsnet[wwassa$bersnet determinative. 18 See Pullins v. Commissioner, 136 T.C. 432, 448; Kellam v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2013-186 at *26. 1. Marital status weighs in favor of relief because petitioner is not married to intervenor. 2. Economic hardship weighs against relief because petitioner testified that his income exceeded his monthly expenses by about $1,300. 3. Knowledge or reason to know weighs against relief because petitioner had knowledge that he owed joint income taxes for 2015 and 2016 and that he had owed joint income taxes for several years before then. His testimony that he believed that intervenor would take care of the taxes "by negotiating with the IRS" is the equivalent of turning a blind eye to determining whether in fact there were arrangements to Pay for the 2015 and 2016 income tax liabilities. 4. There was no indication that the parties had determined whether who had a legal DLL obligation to pay the outstanding income tax liability. 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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 5. Significant benefit is neutral as petitioner testified that he did not 19 receive any significant benefit from the underpayment of the tax. However, we note that intervenor testified that petitioner used his funds that could have been used to pay the tax liabilities to gamble. 6. Compliance with the tax laws weighs in favor of relief as petitioner has filed his subsequent tax returns and reported overpayments for 2017, 2018 and 2019. 7. Mental or physical health. Petitioner testified that he did not suffer any mental or physical health problems so this factor is neutral. The Court does not merely add up the factors for, against and neutral to make its determination. knowledge DLL 18 Rather, the factor of neut-r-a-1 is often a key factor in 19 determining whether a spouse should qualify for relief 20 21 from an underpayment. Given that petitioner and intervenor had a very long history of owing the IRS (as 22 well as falling behind in their mortgage payments) 23 combined with an unconvincing testimony that petitioner 24 made any effort to determine if the tax liabilities for 25 2015 and 2016 were in fact being made, the Court is not (973)4fE2250RperatïonseescribersaetJwww.esaibersnet persuaded that 20 taxpayer is entitled to equitable innocent spouse relief for the 2015 and 2016 tax liabilities. Conclusion In consideration of the various factors, the Court holds that as determined by the IRS petitioner is not entitled to relief from his portion of the 2013 joint income tax liability with respect to the canceled debt and his portion of the accuracy-related penalty attributable to the unreported canceled debt but is entitled to relief 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 from the portion of the 2013 joint income tax liability 11 with respect to the retirement income of intervenor and the portion of the accuracy-related penalty attributable to that unreported retirement income. Further, the Court holds that petitioner is not entitled to relief from the underpayment for the 20157 and 2016 wáth r4spect to tAe joint income tax liabilities. In order to give effect to our disposition of the disputed issues, decision will be entered for respondent. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER AND PROOFREADER 21 CASE NAME: Mark S. Polak, Petitioner and Marilyn Polak, Intervenor v. Commissioner DOCKET NO.: 22823-18S We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 21 inclusive, are the true, accurate and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by James Shank on November 13, 2020 before the United States Tax 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Court at its remote session in Tampa, FL, in accordance 11 with the applicable provisions of the current verbatim 12 13 14 15 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 reporting contract of the Court and have verified the accuracy of the transcript by comparing the typewritten transcript against the verbal recording. Linda Ferrara CET-656 Transcriber 11/14/20 Date Lori Rahtes, CDLT-108 Proofreader 11/14/20 Date