TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Norman Villanueva
Docket Number: 18415-07S
Judge: Dean
Opinion Type: summary
Filed: 05/07/2009
Pages: 5

A~l4. lx7 T .C . Summary Opinion 2009-6 6 UNITED STATES TAX COURT NORMAN VILLANUEVA, Petitioner v . COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Responden t Docket No . 18415-07S . Norman Villanueva, pro se . Brian A . Pfeifer , for respondent : DEAN, Special Trial Judge : This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463''of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was .filed . Pursuant to section .7463(b) ; the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any othe r case . Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year inissue , SERVED May 07 2009 - 2 - and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - Respondent determined a $4,150 deficiency in petitioner's 2005 Federal income tax . The issue remaining ; for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to itemized deductions . in an amount in excess of the standard deduction . . Background .Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found . The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received into evidence are incorporated herein by reference . When the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Florida . . During 2005" petitioner worked in customer service as a handyman, making various repairs for tenants . He did not reside at the same location as the tenants ; thus, he was required to travel to the tenants' homes . He also was not reimbursed by his employer, Quantum Development, for his expenditures . Instead, he claimed $9,282 in unreimbursed employee expenses on his Schedule A, Itemized 'Deductions (before application of the 2-percent floor of section 67(a)) . Petitioner's unreimbursed employee expenses consist of : (1) $330 for tolls ; (2) $2,640 for fuel ; (3) $92 0 'Petitioner presented neither evidence nor argument that he is entitled to his claimed $11,000 deduction for a "'GAMING LOSS" . Petitioner is therefore deemed to have conceded the issue . See Nielsen v . Commissioner , 61 T .C . 311, 312 (1973) ; Mikalonis v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2000-281 . s for clothes ; (4) $850 for "REPAIR" ; (5) $560 for tires ; (6) $2,350 for "COMPUTER" ; and (7) $1,632 for auto-insurance . I . Burden of Proo f Discussio n The Commissioner's determinations in a notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden to prove that the determinations are in error . Rule 142(a) ; Welch v . Helvering, 290 U .S . 111, 115 (1933) . But the burden of proof on factual issues that affect the taxpayer's tax liability may be shifted to the Commissioner where the taxpayer introduces credible . evidence with respect to the issue and the taxpayer has satisfied certain conditions . Sec . 7491(a)(1) . Petitioner has not alleged that section 7491(a) applies, and he has neither complied with the substantiation requirements nor maintained all required records . See sec . 7491(a)(2)(A) and (B) . Accordingly , the burden of proof remains on him . II . Unreimbursed Employee Expense s Section .162(a) authorizes a deduction for all, the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year' in carrying on any trade or business . But as a general rule, deductions are allowed only to the . .extent .that they are substantiated .. Secs . 274(d) .(no deductions are-allowed for gifts, listed property,' or,traveling,entertainment, amusement , or recreation unless substantiated) 3 ..,6001, . (taxpayers must keep records sufficient to establish the amounts of the items required to be shown on their Federal income tax returns) . Petitioner testified that he did not have any records or receipts to substantiate his deductions because he has moved t o different homes,,"he misplaced the box [containing his receipts and records], and he cannot find it right now ." 4 Because petitioner has provided no evidence that meets th e substantiation'r'equirements of section 274(d) or 6001 and the regulations ;hereunder, he is not, entitled to his claime d 2The term "listed property " is defined to include passenger aut"omobil"es and computers or peripheral equipment .'- Sec . 280F (d) (4,) (A)1(i), ( iv) - 'Specifically, sec . 274 ( d) requires taxpayers to substantiate their deductions by'ade'quate records or sufficient evidence to corroborate the taxpayer ' s own testimony as to : (1) The amount of the expenditure or use ;, (2) the"time of the expenditure or use ; ( 3) the place of the expenditure or use ; (3) the business purpose of the-expenditure or use ; and (4) the business relationship to the taxpayer of the persons entertained or receiving the gift . See sec ., 1 .274-5T(a) and ( b), Temporary Income Tax Regs ., 50 Fed . Reg . 46014 (Nov . 6, 1985) . 4Petitioner did not attempt to reconstruct his expenditures . See Boyd v . Commissioner , 122 T . C . 305 ,. 319-322 ( 2004 ) ;' Sanderlin v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2008 - 209 ; sec . 1 .274- 5T(c)(5), Temporary Income Tax'Regs ., 50 Fed . Reg . 46022 ( N.ov . 6,,1985), (if a taxpayer can establish . that the taxpayer ' s failure to produce an adequate record is due to the loss of the record through circumstances beyond the taxpayer ' s control , the taxpayer may substantiate a deduction by reasonable reconstruction of the expenditures) . I deduction for unreimbursed employee expenses . Respondent's determination is sustained . III . Itemized Deduction s Taking into account the Court's determination and petitioner's concession, see supra note 1, his remaining itemize d deduction is $2,548 for State sales taxes . The $2,548 is less than the $5,000 standard deduction for 2005 . -See Rev . Proc . 2004-71, sec . 3 .10, 2004-2 C .B . 970, 973 . The Court assumes that petitioner would want the larger amount and therefore sustains respondent's use of the standard deduction . See sec . 63(cid:127) George v . Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 2006-121 (taxpayers may either elect the standard deduction or elect to itemize deductions) . To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entere d for respondent .