TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Philip V. Perrault
Docket Number: 11906-11S
Judge: Gale
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 10/25/2012
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 Petitioner v. PHILIP V. PERRAULT, ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 11906-11S. ) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ) ) ) Respondent ORDE R 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 above case before Judge Joseph H. Gale at New York, New York, on October 3, 2012, 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) Joseph H. Gale Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. October 25, 2012 SERVÉD OCT 26 2012 Capital Reporting Company Philip V. Perrault 10-03-2012 1 Bench opinion by Judge Joseph H. Gale October 3, 2012 2 Philip V. Perrault v. Commissioner Docket No. 11906- 3 11S 3 4 THE COURT: The court has decided to render 5 oral findings of fact and opinion in this case and 6 7 the following represents the court's oral findings of fact and opinion. The oral findings of fact and 8 opinion should not be relied upon as precedent in any 9 other case . 10 This case was heard as a small tax case, wcówo 5 11 prcvicienc to the provisior/ of Section 7463 of the 12 Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was . filed. 13 14 This bench opinion is made pursuant to the 15 authority granted by Section 7459(b) of the Internal 16 Revenue Code and Rule 152 of the Tax Court Rules of 17 Practice and Procedure. Hereinafter, all section 18 references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect 19 for the years at issue, and all Rule references are 20 to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 21 Petitioner Philip V. Perrault appeared on 22 his own behalf. Eliezer Klein appeared on behalf of 23 24 respondent. Respondent determined deficiencies in 25 petitioner's income taxes for 2008 and 2009 of $3,714 (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Philip V. Perrault 10-03-2012 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 and 3,380 respectively. The deficiencies arose from respondent's denial of various deductions petitioner claimed for his 2008 and 2009 tax years and respondent's determination that petitioner received $26 of dividend income in 2008, which he did not report. At trial petitioner conceded he received,aS6 7 dividend income in 2008. 8 The issue for decision is whether 9 petitioner is entitled to any or al the deductions 10 -dem-ed by respondent. Some of the facts have been 11 stipulated and are so found. Petitioner resided in 12 New York when he filed the petition. Petitioner and 13 his wife timely filed joint federal income tax (cid:16)042 14 15 returns for 2008 and 2009. On February 15th, 2011, respondent mailed 16 petitioner and his wife a notice of deficiency for 17 18 their 2008 and 2009 taxable years. Therein, respondent disallowed the following deductions 19 petitioner claimed for 2008: (1) $9,132 of 20 deductions petitioner claimed on Schedule A, Itemized 21 Deductions, consisting of medical and dental expenses 22 of $8,206 and other miscellaneous deductions of $926; 23 (2) $44,199 of deductions petitioner claimed on 24 Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss; (3) $7, 640 25 of deductiorf for office expenses petitioner claimed (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012 Capital Reporting Company Philip V. Perrault 10-03-2012 5 1 2 on Schedule C, Profit and Loss from Business. c\.bcA\\oweA Respondent. dcnicd the following deductions 3 petitioner claimed for 2009: (1) $11, 490 of itemized 4 deduct·ions consisting of $11,169 of medical and 5 dental expenses and $321 of other miscellaneous 6 deductions; (2).$16,078 of Schedule C expenses 7 consisting of office expenses of $8,456 and supplies 8 of $7,622. 9 10 11 12 The notice of deficiency also made certain computational adjustmentpto petitioner's tax liability based on the income adjustments. Petitioner timely petitioned for redetermination, although, his 13 wife did not petition with respect to the notice. of 14 deficiency. 15 The deficiency determined by the 16 Commissioner in the notice of deficiency is, in 17 general, presumed correct and petitioner has the 18 burden of proving error in the notice of deficiency, 19 Rule 142; Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933). 20 Taxpayers are required to maintain records that are 21 sufficient to enable the Commissioner to determine 22 their correct tax liability. Section 6001 and 23 Section 1.6001-1(a) Income Tax Regs. Deductions are 24 a matter of legislative grace, and the burden of 25 showing entitlement to a claimed deduction is on the (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.cont 2012 Capital Reporting Company Philip V. Perrault 10-03-2012 f4 1 2 3 4 taxpayer . Rule 142 (a) ; INDOPCO, Inc v. Commis sioner, 6 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992). At trial petitioner offered no evidence to substantiate any of his claimed deductionSand 5 presented no argument that would indicate any error 6 7 in the notice of deficiency. Absent any evidence of error in the notice 8 of deficiency we sustain the deficiencies for 2008 9 and 2009 as determined by respondent in the notice of 10 deficiency. 11 To reflect the foregoing, decision will be 12 entered for respondent. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 2 3 2 4 2 5 (Whereupon, at 5:40 p.m., the bench op1nlon ln the above-_entitled matter was concluded.) (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com 2012