Court Opinion

ID: 9956806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:01:21.265012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:54.323524
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10532    Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 04/02/2024    Page: 1 of 12

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 23-10532
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        BETTY AMOS,
                                                                Petitioner,
        versus
        COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

                                                               Respondent.

                           ____________________

                    Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                                 U.S. Tax Court
                               Agency No. 4331-18
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10532        Document: 51-1    Date Filed: 04/02/2024      Page: 2 of 12

        2                        Opinion of the Court                23-10532

        Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Betty Amos appeals the decision of the Tax Court conclu-
        sion that she failed to prove her entitlement to deductions for net
        operating loss (“NOL”) carryforwards in her 2014 and 2015 tax re-
        turns and that she was liable for negligence penalties for claiming
        the deductions without adequate documentation.
                                      I. FACTS
               We write only for the parties who are already familiar with
        the facts. Accordingly, we include only such facts as are necessary
        to understand our opinion. Brieﬂy, the IRS sent Amos a notice of
        deﬁciency in 2018 that determined deﬁciencies in her 2014 and
        2015 tax returns and determined penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6662(a)
        for both years. The IRS explained that it had disallowed the claimed
        NOL carryforward deductions of $4,220,639 for 2014 and
        $4,149,326 for 2015 on the ground that Amos had not established
        that she sustained the loss in prior years or that the loss was availa-
        ble to be carried over.
               The claimed losses stemmed from 1999 and 2000. In their
        1999 return, Amos and her husband 1 claimed losses and showed a
        NOL available to carry forward of $1,498,512. The couple claimed
        additional losses in the year 2000, exceeding their income by

        1 Her husband died in 2002.
USCA11 Case: 23-10532        Document: 51-1        Date Filed: 04/02/2024   Page: 3 of 12

        23-10532                 Opinion of the Court                         3

        $371,663, leaving that amount available to carry forward. Adding
        that amount to the $1,498,512 carryforward from 1999, their 2000
        return showed $1,870,175 available to carry forward. 2 The IRS au-
        dited their 2000 return but ultimately agreed there was no deﬁ-
        ciency. As the Tax Court noted, by the 2008 tax return, the claimed
        NOL carryforward had ballooned to $5,747,514 and by her 2013
        return, it had decreased to $4,302,895. Amos petitioned the Tax
        Court regarding a notice of deﬁciency with respect to her 2009 tax
        return; this resulted in a stipulated decision determining a deﬁ-
        ciency of $11,545 and additions to tax. The parties stipulated that
        the deﬁciency amount did not take into account the NOLs from
        prior years, with Amos reserving the right to claim NOLs in the
        future and the IRS reserving the right to challenge any claimed loss.
               After a bench trial, the Tax Court ﬁrst noted that Amos bore
        the burden of proof to show that the notice of deﬁciency was er-
        roneous and that she was entitled to the NOL carryforward deduc-
        tions. It held that she had not “substantiated the items at issue nor
        maintained adequate records” such that she could shift the burden
        of proof to the IRS. Doc. 52 at 6. The court concluded that Amos
        had not established the existence of the NOLs in 1999 and 2000.
        The court also held that Amos had not shown suﬃcient details with
        respect to whether carryforwards had been absorbed in years inter-
        vening between 2000 and 2014 such that there were carryforward
        NOLs available for 2014 and 2015. The court also rejected Amos’s
        argument that the IRS should be estopped from disallowing the

        2 The taxpayers elected to forego any carryback in 1999 and 2000.
USCA11 Case: 23-10532      Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 04/02/2024      Page: 4 of 12

        4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10532

        NOLs because it had not disallowed the NOLs in earlier years; the
        court stated that by not pursuing this argument that she raised at
        trial in post-hearing brieﬁng, she had abandoned it. However, the
        court also rejected it on the merits because the prior allowance of
        a deduction does not bind the agency and she had not satisﬁed the
        requirements for equitable or collateral estoppel. Finally, it sus-
        tained the negligence penalty because Amos did not show that she
        had acted with reasonable cause and in good faith. It cited her fail-
        ure to keep records and the fact that she was a longtime CPA.
                           II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
               We review the Tax Court’s legal conclusions as well as stat-
        utory interpretations de novo. Greenberg v Comm’r, 10 F.4th 1136,
        1155 (11th Cir. 2021). We review the Tax Court’s factual ﬁndings
        for clear error. Id. “A ﬁnding of fact is clearly erroneous if the rec-
        ord lacks substantial evidence to support it, so that our review of
        the entire evidence leaves us with the deﬁnite and ﬁrm conviction
        that a mistake has been committed.” Ocmulgee Fields, Inc. v. Comm’r,
        613 F.3d 1360, 1364 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Atlanta Athletic Club v.
        Comm’r, 980 F.2d 1409, 1411–12 (11th Cir. 1993)).
                                  III. DISCUSSION
        A. NOL Deduction
               The Commissioner’s determination of a deﬁciency is pre-
        sumed correct, and the taxpayer has the burden of proving other-
        wise. Tucker v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 841 F.3d 1241, 1249 (11th
        Cir. 2016). Additionally, deductions are a matter of legislative
        grace, and the taxpayer has the burden of proving his entitlement
USCA11 Case: 23-10532      Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 04/02/2024     Page: 5 of 12

        23-10532               Opinion of the Court                         5

        to any claimed deduction. Id. We have stated that the burden is on
        the taxpayer to “come forward with evidence to support his enti-
        tlement to [a] deduction and the amount of that entitlement.” Gat-
        lin v. Comm’r, 754 F.2d 921, 923 (11th Cir. 1985)
               Taxpayers are required to substantiate expenses underlying
        each claimed deduction by maintaining records suﬃcient to estab-
        lish the amount of the deduction and to enable the Commissioner
        to determine the correct tax liability. See 26 U.S.C. § 6001. Taxpay-
        ers cannot rely solely on their own income tax returns to establish
        the losses they sustained. See Roberts v. Comm’r, 62 T.C. 834, 837
        (1974). Instead, taxpayers are required to “keep such permanent
        books of account or records, including inventories, as are suﬃcient
        to establish the amount of gross income, deductions, credits, or
        other matters required to be shown by such person in any return
        of such tax or information.” 26 C.F.R. § 1.6001-1.
               A taxpayer must comply with 28 U.S.C. § 172(b) to carry for-
        ward a NOL from a previous year. “Every taxpayer claiming a net
        operating loss deduction for any taxable year shall ﬁle with his re-
        turn for such year a concise statement setting forth the amount of
        the net operating loss deduction claimed and all material and perti-
        nent facts relative thereto, including a detailed schedule showing the
        computation of the net operating loss deduction.” 26 C.F.R. §
        1.172-1(c) (emphasis added).
             In this case, the Tax Court made several rulings, all of which
        we aﬃrm. We discuss each in turn.
              1. Waived Arguments
USCA11 Case: 23-10532        Document: 51-1       Date Filed: 04/02/2024       Page: 6 of 12

        6                        Opinion of the Court                    23-10532

                The Tax Court ruled that Amos had the burden of proving:
        a) the fact and amount of the NOL originally incurred in 1999 and
        2000; and b) the fact and amount of any NOL carryforward to the
        years 2014 and 2015, as well as the extent to which any such NOL
        carryforward was absorbed in the intervening years. The Tax
        Court also held that Amos had failed to maintain the required rec-
        ords that might have enabled her to shift the burden of proof. In
        Amos’s brief on appeal, she failed to challenge these holdings and
        thus has abandoned any such challenge. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian
        Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014).
               2. Amos’s Challenges to the Tax Court’s Rulings
               The Tax Court also ruled that Amos is not entitled to the
        claimed NOL carryforwards for 2014 and 2015 because: a) she
        failed to provide suﬃcient evidence of the underlying NOLs in
        1999 and 2000; and b) she failed to show that any such 1999-2000
        NOL was still available to carry forward for 2014 or 2015, rather
        than having been absorbed in the intervening years.
               To the extent that Amos challenges3 theses holdings on ap-
        peal, any such challenge fails. In her Statement of the Case, in her
        brief on appeal, Amos suggests a factual challenge to the Tax
        Court’s ﬁndings both with respect to the fact and amount of any
        losses incurred in 1999 and 2000, and with respect to the fact and

        3 Amos’s brief does not contain an argument section and instead includes her

        arguments, to the extent they are made, within her Statement of the Case.
        Her arguments even there are sketchy and almost entirely without citation of
        authority.
USCA11 Case: 23-10532       Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 04/02/2024      Page: 7 of 12

        23-10532                Opinion of the Court                          7

        amount of NOL carryforwards therefrom—i.e., amounts absorbed
        in the intervening years, and the fact and amount of NOL carryfor-
        wards available for 2014 and 2015. To support such a factual chal-
        lenge, Amos relies primarily on her tax return for the year 2000, on
        snippets from her tax returns for some of the intervening years and
        on her “Detail NOL Carryover Worksheet.” We agree with the Tax
        Court that such proof is insuﬃcient to substantiate Amos’s entitle-
        ment to the claimed carryforwards. The law is clear that “merely
        signing a tax return under penalty of perjury does not establish the
        facts contained therein. . . . The tax return signed under penalties
        of perjury is merely a statement of the petitioner’s claim.” Roberts,
        62 T.C. at 837. Moreover, with respect to the worksheet, the Tax
        Court found that Amos “failed to introduce any support that might
        lend credence to the speciﬁc assertions in her worksheets.” Doc 52
        at 9.
               In her Statement of the Case in her appellate brief, Amos
        also suggests that the validity of her claimed losses in 1999 and 2000
        is supported by her assertion that her 2000 return was audited and
        resulted in a no deﬁciency ﬁnding. She also suggests that her return
        was also audited in 2003, 2005, and 2008 and resulted in no deﬁ-
        ciency ﬁndings; she suggests this also supports the validity of her
        claimed losses in 1999 and 2000 and the availability of the claimed
        NOL carryforwards.
               With respect to the signiﬁcance of previous audits, the Tax
        Court held: a) that Amos abandoned the issue by failing to raise it
        either in her petition or in her post-trial brief; and b) alternatively,
USCA11 Case: 23-10532      Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 04/02/2024     Page: 8 of 12

        8                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10532

        on the merits, that a deduction condoned or agreed to in a former
        year does not bind the IRS with respect to other years, leaving the
        IRS free to challenge it in a succeeding year. Amos’s brief on appeal
        fails to challenge either ruling; thus, Amos has doubly abandoned
        the Tax Court’s abandonment ruling, and has also abandoned any
        equitable estoppel issue on the merits of whether the prior audits
        could establish the validity of the NOL carryforwards.
               Amos also suggests in her appellate brief that the trial testi-
        mony of Vengel supports her claimed losses in 1999 and 2000.
        Vengel was a manager of the CPA ﬁrm that prepared her 1999 and
        2000 returns and testiﬁed with respect to his ﬁrm’s representation
        of Amos during the IRS audit of her 2000 return. To the extent
        that Amos is suggesting that Vengel’s testimony conﬁrmed the fact
        and amount of the losses claimed on the 1999 and 2000 returns
        were approved by the IRS in the audit, any such evidence cannot
        assist Amos because, as set out above, the Tax Court held that a
        deduction condoned or agreed to in a former year does not bind
        the IRS in a succeeding year, and because Amos has abandoned any
        challenge to that ruling. Moreover, contrary to Amos’s suggestion,
        Vengel’s testimony did not conﬁrm the fact or amount of losses on
        Amos’s returns. Vengel testiﬁed that his ﬁrm did not conduct an
        audit of the materials produced by Amos in 2000 when preparing
        her tax returns. He clariﬁed:
              [W]e didn’t do an audit, so there was no examining.
              Like we didn’t make a selection of transactions, and
              examine supporting documentation in that sense. We
              weren’t going to that extent. We would look at -- we
USCA11 Case: 23-10532        Document: 51-1           Date Filed: 04/02/2024      Page: 9 of 12

        23-10532                  Opinion of the Court                               9

               were doing a review engagement. So under a review
               engagement, it’s a lot of inquiries, and a lot of analyt-
               ics. Looking at ratios, looking at changes in accounts
               from one year to another, why things might change,
               asking clients the question of why this balance is
               higher than previous years.
        Tr. at 28. Thus, Vengel’s testimony did not conﬁrm the veracity of
        the amounts listed as losses on Amos’s 2000 return or in her testi-
        mony. 4
               With respect to the Tax Court’s ruling that Amos failed to
        show that any 1999-2000 NOL was still available to carry forward
        for 2014 or 2015 (rather than having been absorbed in the interven-
        ing years), Amos suggests in her appellate brief 5 that her challenge
        is based on her tax returns for the years intervening between 2000
        and 2014 and especially her “Detail NOL Carryover Worksheet.”
        However, as noted above, such evidence is insuﬃcient, being
        merely a statement of the taxpayer’s claims. See Roberts, 62 T.C. at
        837. Moreover, the Tax Court found that Amos failed to introduce

        4 Further, even if it were relevant, Vengel’s testimony regarding the 2000 tax

        year audit does not go to proving the larger 1999 NOL because 2000 was also
        a loss year for Amos and she would have used that loss to offset income instead
        of the 1999 NOL.
                 Moreover, in the context of this case—where the losses derive from
        deemed distributions from subchapter S corporations—proving the deductible
        amount from NOL carryforwards would also require proof of Amos’s adjusted
        basis of her S corporation stock.
        5 Again, only in her Statement of the Case.
USCA11 Case: 23-10532        Document: 51-1         Date Filed: 04/02/2024        Page: 10 of 12

        10                        Opinion of the Court                       23-10532

        a complete set of her tax returns from 2001 to 2013, and that the
        snippets that were introduced were insuﬃcient to determine how
        much of any 1999-2000 NOL carryforward might have been ab-
        sorbed before 2014. And with respect to Amos’s “Detail NOL Car-
        ryover Worksheet,” the Tax Court also rejected that ﬁling because
        she “failed to introduce any support that might lend credence to
        the speciﬁc assertions in her worksheets.” Doc. 52 at 9; 26 C.F.R. §
        1.172-1(c). We cannot conclude that the Tax Court’s ﬁndings in this
        regard were clearly erroneous. Amos’s appellate brief points to lit-
        tle or no evidence that might bolster the credence of her worksheet
        other than the testimony of Vengel, but, as noted above, Vengel’s
        testimony does not help Amos. Further, her brief on appeal and
        the worksheet are odds, with her worksheet alleging diﬀerent years
        that she used the NOL carryforward than the brief. 6
               In short, with respect to the NOL carryforward issues, Amos
        has failed to show that the Tax Court’s ﬁndings of fact are clearly
        erroneous, or that it committed errors of law.

        6 To the extent that Amos argues the audits in 2003, 2005, and 2008 all resulted

        in no deficiency findings and therefore support the continuing availability and
        validity of the NOL carryforwards, we noted above that the Tax Court held
        that a deduction condoned or agreed to in a former year does not bind the IRS
        with respect to a succeeding year, and that Amos has abandoned any challenge
        to that ruling. Moreover, the evidence indicates with respect to the audit of
        the year 2009 that the IRS did not allow any NOL carryover for that year and
        reserved the right to challenge NOL carryforwards in future years.
USCA11 Case: 23-10532       Document: 51-1        Date Filed: 04/02/2024   Page: 11 of 12

        23-10532                 Opinion of the Court                       11

        B. Accuracy-related Penalties
                Amos argues7 that the Tax Court erred when it found her
        liable for the penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6662(a) because she reason-
        ably believed the NOL to be available after claiming it for multiple
        years. Section 6662(a) imposes a 20% accuracy-related penalty on
        underpayment of tax for reasons listed in § 6662(b), including
        “[n]egligence or disregard of rules or regulations.” Curtis Inv. Co.,
        LLC v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 909 F.3d 1339, 1350 (11th Cir.
        2018). The IRS bears the burden of production with respect to a
        taxpayer’s liability for a § 6662(a) penalty and must produce suﬃ-
        cient evidence supporting imposition of the penalty. See 26 U.S.C.
        § 7491(c). If the IRS meets this burden (which IRS has satisﬁed here
        because Amos failed to maintain the required records and could
        not substantiate the claimed deductions), “‘[t]he taxpayer bears the
        burden of establishing that he acted with reasonable cause and in
        good faith’” with respect to the underpayment to avoid the impo-
        sition of misstatement penalties described in 26 U.S.C. § 6662. Cur-
        tis, 909 F.3d at 1351 (quoting Gustashaw v. Comm’r, 696 F.3d 1124,
        1134 (11th Cir. 2012)). The regulations instruct that the determina-
        tion of good faith and reasonable cause is a ﬁnding of fact based on
        the totality of the circumstances. Treas. Reg. § 1.6664-4(b)(1). “Cir-
        cumstances that may indicate reasonable cause and good faith in-
        clude an honest misunderstanding of fact or law that is reasonable

        7 Again, Amos’s argument is only in her Statement of the Case.
USCA11 Case: 23-10532     Document: 51-1      Date Filed: 04/02/2024     Page: 12 of 12

        12                     Opinion of the Court                 23-10532

        in light of all of the facts and circumstances, including the experi-
        ence, knowledge, and education of the taxpayer.” Id.
               Amos argues that she reasonably took the NOL deduction
        because it had been sustained in earlier audits and successfully de-
        fended by a prominent accounting ﬁrm. The Tax Court rejected
        Amos’s arguments because the record contains little information
        regarding the previous tax years, making it impossible to determine
        if they were pertinent. Indeed, Amos concedes that she no longer
        has the documents supporting the 2003 audit of the 2000 return.
        While Amos concedes that she was an accountant, she argues that
        she was not a tax expert and employed an accounting ﬁrm to pre-
        pare her returns in 1999 and 2000. But, as the Tax Court stated, the
        accounting ﬁrm did not opine on whether the NOL deduction
        would be available in 2014 and 2015. Further, while she may not
        have been a tax expert, the court stated “[i]t beggars belief that she
        would be unaware that each tax year stands alone and that it was
        her responsibility to demonstrate her entitlement to the deductions
        she claimed.” Doc. 52 at 11. We agree. It is a basic tenet of tax law
        that the taxpayer bears the burden of proving entitlement to de-
        ductions and retaining records to support them. Amos did neither.
        We cannot conclude that the Tax Court was clearly erroneous in
        ﬁnding that Amos failed to prove that she acted with reasonable
        cause and in good faith.
              For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Tax Court is
        AFFIRMED.