TAX COURT OPINION

Case: James A. Shinault
Docket Number: 11360-04
Judge: Wells
Opinion Type: memo
Filed: 06/27/2006
Pages: 5

DD f i. CB T.C. Memo. 2006-136 sgA2. I UNITED STATES TAX COURT JAMES A. SHINAULT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 11360-04. Filed June 27, 2006. James A. Shinault, pro se. J. Craig Young, for respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION WELLS, Judge: Respondent determined a $9,378 deficiency in tax, and additions to tax pursuant to sections 6651(a) (1) and 6654(a) of $2,345 and $504.39, respectively, for petitioner's taxable year 2000. The issues we must decide are: 1. Whether petitioner's correct filing status for taxable year 2000 is that of a married individual filing separately. SERVED JUN 2 7 2006 - 3 - time the return was due, he believed he was not required to file tax returns or pay taxes because money he received for his labor was a nontaxable exchange of equal value.¹ Petitioner, however, did timely file a tax return for taxable year 2001. Based on a Form 1099 issued to petitioner by Lauren's Cycle Sales, Inc. for taxable year 2000, respondent determined a $9,378 deficiency in tax and additions to tax pursuant to sections 6651(a)(1) and 6654(a) in the amounts of $2,3452 and $504.39, respectively, and sent petitioner a notice of deficiency on April 7, 2004. Respondent computed the deficiency using the tax rates under section 1(c) for an unmarried individual who is not a head of household. Petitioner timely petitioned this Court contending: "I do not have any tax liability. I deny the figures and content of the Notice of Deficiency. I dispute the computations. In the year in question I had dependents, deductions, credits, business expenses, etc. Local taxes, interest, dependent son." ¹We note that petitioner has previously appeared before this In docket No. 19512-03L, a case in which we entered oral to sec. 7459 and Rule 152, that he Court. findings of petitioner contended, among other frivolous contentions, did not owe taxes for taxable year 1993 because respondent sent the notice of determination to a "straw man" when respondent used all capital subsequently had a change of heart regarding the tax laws and started filing returns, beginning with taxable year 2001. fact and opinion pursuant letters to spell petitioner's name. Petitioner 2The addition to tax pursuant to sec. 6651(a)(1) determined in the notice of deficiency was originally, and incorrectly, calculated as $3,704.31. - 5 - supra at 446-447. A taxpayer may claim married filing jointly status if he and his spouse are legally eligible to file jointly and in fact do file. See secs. 1(a), 6013; Columbus v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-60, affd. without published opinion 162 F.3d 1172 (10th Cir. 1998). Respondent contends that petitioner's correct filing status is that of married individual filing a separate return. See sec. 1(d). Petitioner testified at trial that he sent a joint Federal (cid:16)042tax return for taxable year 2000 to the Internal Revenue Service in Atlanta, Georgia, in November of 2005. Petitioner, however, failed to produce a signed copy of his return or a certified mail receipt despite testifying that he had both. Respondent's transcripts of account contained no evidence of any 2000 tax return for petitioner. Based on the record in the instant case, we conclude that petitioner has failed to prove that his filing (cid:16)042status is not married filing separately. Petitioner bears the burden of showing that he is entitled to claim any additional exemptions. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, supra; Columbus v. Commissioner, supra. A taxpayer filing a separate return may claim an exemption for his spouse "if the spouse, for the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins, has no gross income and is not the dependent of another taxpayer." Sec. 151(b). A taxpayer also may claim an additional exemption for each individual who is a - 7 - 6001; Menequzzo v. Commissioner, 43 T.C. 824, 831-832 (1965); sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs. The taxpayer also bears the burden of substantiating the amount and purpose of the claimed deductions. Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 90 (1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976); sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs. In the instant case, the only evidence petitioner presented supporting his claimed Schedule C deductions was his own uncorroborated testimony, which was vague and did not elaborate on any of the claimed Schedule C expenses. This Court is not compelled to accept as true uncorroborated evidence of an interested witness even though uncontradicted. Marcella v. Commissioner, 222 F.2d 878, 883 (8th Cir. 1955), affg. in part and vacating in part a Memorandum Opinion of this Court. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner has failed to prove that he is entitled to the claimed Schedule C deductions for taxable year 2002. Section 32(a)(1) provides that an eligible individual shall be allowed an earned income credit against his income tax. However, in the case of a married individual, section 32(d) provides that section 32 applies only if the individual filed a joint return. As of the date of trial, respondent's transcript of account contained no evidence that petitioner had filed a joint return for taxable year 2000. Accordingly, we hold that - 9 - value for his labor. Misguided interpretations of the Constitution or other typical tax protester arguments are not reasonable cause. See Yoder v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990- 116. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for taxable year 2000. Section 6654(a) imposes an addition to tax for failure to pay estimated income tax. Section 6654 applies where prepayments of tax, either through withholdings or by making estimated quarterly payments, do not equal the percentage of total liability required under the statute, unless one of the several statutory exceptions applies. Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202, 222 (1992). The taxpayer bears the burden of showing he qualifies for an exception. Habersham-Bey v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 304, 319-320 (1982). We find that petitioner does not qualify for any such exception. Accordingly, we hold that (cid:16)042petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section 6654 for taxable year 2000. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered under Rule 155.