TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Sedrue Bickham, Jr.
Docket Number: 20439-11S
Judge: Goeke
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 05/16/2012
Pages: 7

UNITED STATES TAX COUR WASHINGTON, DC 20217 SEDRUE BICKHAM, JR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ) ) ) ) ) Docket No. 20439-11S. ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to the opinion of the Court as set forth in the pages of the transcript of the proceedings before Judge Joseph R. Goeke at New Orleans, Louisiana, on April 19, 2012, containing oral findings of fact and opinion, it is ORDERED In accordance with the oral findings offact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Joseph Robert Goeke Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. May 16, 2012 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 BENCH OPINION BY JUDGE JOSEPH ROBERT GOEKE BICKHAM V . COMMISSIONER DOCKET NO. : 20439-11S April 19, 2012 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 f indings o f f act and opinion shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case. This case is before the Court pursuant to the provisions of Section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time the petition was filed. Pursuant to Section 7463 the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other Court. The present case is beforel the Court based upon our jurisdiction, to review a deficiency after a timely petition filed in response to the issuance by Respondent of the notice of deficiency. Respondent issued a notice of deficiency for the year 2008 and asserted deficienc es in income tax and additions to tax under Sections 6651(a) (1) and (2) and 6654 (a) . This opinion is rendered pursuant to authority in Section 7459 and Tax Court Rule of Practice and Procedure 152. Pursuant to Tax Court Heritage Reporting Corporåtion (202) 628-4888 4 Rule of Practice and Procedure 142 and Section 7491, the Petitioner has the burden of proof in this case, except that- Respondent has the burden to establish evidence to support the additions to tax as a preliminary matter. Respondent, once having established that the additions to tax are appropriate, the burden shifts to the Petitioner to establish that he has reasonable cause for his failure to timely file a federal income tax return. Respondent has conceded some of the issues pending in this case at trial . Res ondent has conceded the applicability of the additions to tax under Section 6654 and that is no loEger an issue. Respondent has also conceded that the Petitioner is entitled to itemized dbductions for gambling losses in the amount of $6800, and in accord with that concession Respondent statés that the deficiency in dispute is now $22,295, instead of the amount $22,672,·asserted in the notice of deficiency. Respondent also concedes tl at the addition to tax under Section 6651(a) (1) is now $1899.23, in lieu of the amount of $1984.05, which was asserted in the notice of deficiency. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Heritage.Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 5 Respondent maintains that t[he correct amount of the addition to tax under Section 6651(a) (2) is $1519.78. The facts of this case are relatively straightforward and were presented tp the Court in a stipulation of facts and supplemented by testimony from the Petitioner. Petitioner resided in Baton Rouge, Louisiana at the time he filed the petition in this case. As previously stated, he received notic of deficiency fro Rsspondent for the year 2008. Petitioner failed to h ' federal income tax return for 2008, although ad personal service wage income from Bell South Telecommunications, Inc . , in the amount of $87, 874 in 2008. Petitioner also had $4800 in gambling winnings from Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc., and $2, 000 in gambling winnings from the Belle of Baton Rouge Casino. Petitioner also had dividend income in the amount of $2,584, and he received a distribution from a retirement account in the amount of $14,172. Petitioner did not offer any evidence at trial to offset the income items, but as previously stated, Respondent has conceded Petitioner is entitled 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 to itemized deductions for gambling losses in the amount of his gambling winnings, $6800 . Regarding the cause for P titioner's failure to file a federal income tax return for 2008, Petitioner explained that his wife and his mother had passed away in 2007 and that he was injured and had to undergo surgery in 2008. He was not specific as to how the surgery caused him to fail to file federal income tax return timely for 2008. And in light of the fact that he remained employed throughout the year and earned significant wages throughout the year, it is difficult for the Court to sustain his assertion that he had reasonable cause for his failure to file a 2008 federal income tax return. Regarding the additions to tax under Section 6651 (a) (2) , the addition to tax only applies when an amount of tax is shown on an income tax return. Petitioner did not file a return; however, under Section 6651(g) (2) a return must be repared in accord with Section 6020 (b) of the Internal Revenue Code. Such a return is treated as a return filed for purposes of determining whether the ddition to tax under Section 6651 (a) (2) is applicable . Petitioner did not dispute that Respondent had prepared such a substitute for return under Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 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 7 Section 6020(b). Accordingly Respondent has met the burden of production relative to the addition to tax under Section 6651(a) (2), and because the parties have stipulated that Petitioner failed to file an income tax return, espondent has met the burden of production Section 6651(a) ( ) . previously stated, the Court is unable to determine that the Petitioner had reasonable cause for failure to file in 2008. The Court is sympathetic to Petitioner's personal loss relative to the death of his wife and his.mother; however, the act that he w able to continue to work in 2008 an make income and that he has failed to show how any medical disability caused him to be unable to file an ncome tax return for 2008 in April of 2009, we determine that he has failed to carry his burden to establish a reasonable cause for his failure to file an income tax return, and also has failed to establish rea onable cause, which would cause the addition to tax under Section 6651(a) (2) to be inapplicable. Accordingly, but for Respo dent's concessions, Respondent's determinat ons in this case are sustained, and the additions to ax are determined in accord with the amounts previousl stated, which were asserted by Respondent at trial Heritage Reporting Corpor tion (202) 628-4888 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 8 We also note that the deficiency we have determined is in accord with the deficiency recalculated after Respondent's concesslon, as Respondent stated at trial. This concludes the Court ' s oral f indings of f act and opinions in this case . (Whereupon, at 9:11 a.m., the bench opinion in the above-entitled matter was concluded.) // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // // Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888