TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Earline Terry
Docket Number: 7299-14S
Judge: Guy
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/08/2015
Pages: 5

EARLINE TERRY, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 KVC ) ) ) ) Docket No. 7299-14S. 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 abovecaptioned case before Special Trial Judge Daniel A. Guy, Jr., at Chicago, Illinois, on September 23, 2015, 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, an appropriate decision will be entered. (Signed) Daniel A. Guy, Jr. Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. October 8, 2015 SERVED Oct 13 2015 Capital Reporting Company . . ,,; .. 3 1 2 3 Bench Opinion by Special Trial Judge Daniel A. Guy, Jr. September 24, 2015 . 4 Earline Terry v. Commissioner 5 6 Docket No. 7299-14S THE COURT: The Court has decided to render 7 Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion in this case and 8 9 the following represents the Court's Oral Findings of Fact and Opinion. The Oral Findings of Fact and 10 Opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 other case. This proceeding- for the redetermination of a deficiency is a small tax case conducted pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rules 170 through 174 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure . This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 22 Hereinafter in this bench opinion, section references 23 24 25 are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for 2009, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 4 Petitioner resided in Illinois at the time the petition was filed. She appeared at trial pro se, Robert M. Romashko appeared on behalf of respondent. The parties filed with the Court a 5 Stipulation of Facts, with accompanying exhibits, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 that is incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner did not file a tax return for 2009. Consequently, respondent prepared a Substitute for Return in accordance with section 6020 (b) and issued to petitioner a Notice of Deficiency. In the notice, respondent determined that petitioner failed to report the following items of income: State refunds of $67, gambling winnings of $2,500, taxable distributions from pensions of $1,800, ordinary dividends of $2, wages of $68,299, and capital gains of $2,220. Respondent allowed petitioner a standard deduction of $5,700, a single personal exemption of $3, 650, and a "making work pay" credit of $400. 20 Consistent with the foregoing, respondent determine 21 22 that petitioner is liable for an income tax deficiency of $12,349 (before the application of a 23 withholding credit of $10,349) and additions to tax 24 25 under sections 6651(a)(1) (failure to file a timely tax return) and 6651(a)(2) (failure to timely pay tax 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 due) . The Commissioner' s determination of a taxpayer's liability in a Notice of Deficiency normally is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the determination is incorrect. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933) . Petitioner does not dispute that she received the items of income determined in the Notice of Deficiency nor does she dispute the application of the additions to tax under sections 6651(a)(1) and 6651(a)(2). In response to questions from the Court, petitioner clarified that she did not intend to claim itemized deductions in lieu of the standard deduction and she did not suggest that she was entitled to any .16 additional tax exemptions or credits. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Petitioner stateÂ that she believed that her employer failed to withhold the appropriate amount from her wages to cover the Federal income tax that she owes for 2009. The Court's review of the record suggests that the $10,349 that was withheld from petitioner's wages was sufficient (or nearly so) to offset the Federal income tax due in respect of her wages. More likely, the balance of the tax due in this case is attributable to petitioner's failure 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 1 2 3 4 to elect withholding or to make estimated tax payments in respect of the remaining items of income (totaling approximately $6,500) that she received in 2009. In any event, the lack of sufficient 5 withholding or estimated tax payments for 2009 does 6 7 8 9 not relieve petitioner of liability for the deficiency or additions to tax that respondent determined in this case. On this record, we are obliged to sustain 10 respondent's determinations in the Notice of 11 Deficiency. Consistent with the foregoing, decision 12 will be entered for respondent. This concludes the 13 Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 case. (Whereupon, at 1:09 p.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) - 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com