TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Randall Martin & Arnetta Martin
Docket Number: 29808-15
Judge: Halpern
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/24/2016
Pages: 4

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 RANDALL MARTIN AND ARNETTA MARTIN, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 29808-15 ) ) ) ) ) ) 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 petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the 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. October 24, 2016 SERVED OCT 2 82016 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 Bench Opinion by Judge James S. Halpern September 21, 2016 3 Randall Martin and Arnetta Martin v. Commissioner Docket No. 29808-15 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 opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by 7459 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. By Notice of Deficiency dated September 1st, 2015 Respondent has determined that deficiency in the Petitioner's joint income tax of $244,176 and an addition to tax under ection 6662 (a) of $48, 835.20. The Petitioner bears the burden of proof with respect to the adjustments increasing items of gross income, which per the Notice of Deficiency are gross income of receipts of and expenses :::r. of -- Schedule C-1 expenses of $1,571,220, other expenses of $625,215 and adjustments, administerial adjustments of positive adjustments due to 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO twww.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 the change in the remainders. And a total deficiency as stated. The Petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proof. The Court sustains those additions. The Respondent has carried his burden of production to show in position of the accuracy-related penalty on the basis of a substantial understatement of income tax of the deficiency and additions are sustained. This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. Finished. MR. INDEK: Thank you, Your Honor. MS. GILMORE: Your Honor, before you close this case entirely. I believe, I was just reflecting back, I believe the actual procedural things, I don't think that the decision signed by one Petitioner is adequate. And so but that can be treated as her 18 concession so that the opinion you just gave would be against both of them. So it would just be a decision 20 would be entered against both of the Petitioners. THE COURT: Okay. So -- MS. GILMORE: I believe. THE COURT: -- to understand, you want us to enter decision -- MS. GILMORE: Against both of them. 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO twww.Capita1ReportingCompany.com 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 Capital Reporting Company 5 THE COURT: -- against both. In other words, the caption will be both Petitioners. MS. GILMORE: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: And the order and decision will be a decision without reflecting her separate concession. Just a decision in the case? MS. GILMORE: Yes, Your Honor, I believe. THE COURT: With the amounts that we just read. MS. GILMORE: Yes. Since the decision that she signed reflected those same amounts that you just read, I believe that that would be the cleaner and more proper way to proceed in this case. THE COURT: All right, that's fine. As I said, I asked earlier. MS. GILMORE: I know. And initially I thought that would be fine. Then I started thinking about it and realized that I think the cleaner way is to just have it against both of them. THE COURT: We'll do it. MS. GILMORE: All right, thank you. THE COURT: All right. MR. INDEK: Thank you, Your Honor. (Whereupon, at 10:43 a.m. the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 866.488.DEPO twww.Capita1ReportingCompany.com