TAX COURT OPINION

Case: D. P. Harris a.k.a. Darrell P. Harris
Docket Number: 5740-18
Judge: Halpern
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 12/17/2019
Pages: 3

JRB UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 D. P. HARRIS A.K.A. DARRELL P. HARRIS, Petitioner(s), v. ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 5740-18. 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 revised transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge James S. Halpern at Baltimore, Maryland, 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) James S. Halpern Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. December 17, 2019 SERVED Dec 18 2019 sench Opinion by Judge James S. Halpern October 29, 2019 3 D.P Harris A.K.A Darrell P. Harris v. Commissioner Docket No. 5740-18 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. The oral findings of fact and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This bench 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OPinion is smade pursuant to the authority granted by 11 Section 7459(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 12 13 14 15 amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all rule references are to the Tax 16 Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 17 Respondent determined a deficiency of $8,939 in 18 Petitioner's federal income tax for 2015 and determined an 19 accuracy-related penalty under Section 6662(a) of $1,787. 20 Respondent then reduced the deficiency to $5,764 and 21 22 conceded the penalty. The parties have stipulated certain facts. The 23 stipulation of facts, with attached exhibits, is 24 25 incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner bears the burden of proof, Rule 142. Respondent's adjustments 1973)406-2250|operations@escribersnet|werw.escelbersaet 4 giving rise to the deficiency in tax principally relate to his disallowance of various deductions in the amount of $24,387 claimed by Petitioner on Schedule C, profit or loss from his business. Petitioner introduced no evidence to substantiate any of the disallowed deductions. Petitioner's whole case consisted of efforts to show that he had overpaid his tax in years subsequent to 2015 and Respondent had frozen his refunds. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 That may be so, but it has nothing to do with 11 whether the deficiency in Petitioner's 2015 income tax was 12 any less than determined by Respondent. The term 13 deficiency is defined in Section 6211, generally, as the 14 15 16 amount of tax due over the amount of tax shown on the return. Petitioner has failed to Carry his burden of 17 proving facts supporting his assignment of error to a 18 deficiency. We will sustain a deficiency in tax of 19 $5,764. No penalty applies. This concludes the Court's 20 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. (Whereupon, at 10:25 a.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.) 21 22 23 24 25 (973)406-2250loßerations@erribersmet[wwyrsscribetsmet