Court Opinion

ID: 4620711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-11-21 02:43:13.862625+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:55:52.491523
License: Public Domain

James F. and Jennie L. Wilson v. Commissioner.Wilson v. CommissionerDocket No. 14269.United States Tax Court1948 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 44; 7 T.C.M. (CCH) 819; T.C.M. (RIA) 48232; November 12, 1948*44  Preston D. Orem, Esq., for the petitioners. H. Arlo Melville, Esq., for the respondent.  LEMIRE Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion The respondent determined a deficiency of $208.24 in petitioners' income and victory tax for 1943, plus a five per cent penalty of $10.41. The year 1942 is involved because of the forgiveness feature of the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943. The deficiency arises out of respondent's refusal to allow deductions claimed in petitioners' income tax returns for the years 1942 and 1943. Findings of Fact During the years 1942 and 1943, petitioners were residents of the State of California and filed joint returns for those years with the collector of internal revenue for the 6th district of California, at Los Angeles. On their returns for those years they reported gross income from James F. Wilson's employment as a pipe fitter and later as a pipe expediter in the amount of $3,299.60 for 1942 and $3,574.78 for 1943. They claimed deductions in their returns for each of the years as follows: ITEMSContributions19421943Baptist Church$ 12.00Red Cross5.00Salvation Army25.00China Relief1.00U.S.O.35.00Tuberculosis Society2.00D.A.V.1.50Community Chest5.00Orthopedic Hospital5.00March of Dimes3.00Veterans of Foreign Wars1.00Rescue Mission1.00War Chest12.00Soldiers' and Sailors' Relief1.00Army and Navy1.00Total contributionsNone$110.50InterestMortgage on home$256.81291.17Total interest$256.81$291.17TaxesReal estate68.3268.17Personal property1.00Licenses10.403.90Amusement12.50Federal use5.00State income5.15Sales tax35.00Total taxes$ 78.72$ 130.72LossesPlumbing broke, and rug wasruined12.00Rough wear on clothing20.00Total lossesNone$ 32.00Deductible ExpenseHard toe shoes12.00Repair4.50Gloves10.00Laundry of working clothes(only)78.00Trade magazines4.00Kit of tools value $45.00 (de-preciation. 3 yrs.)15.00Excessive transportationcharges80.60Accident insurance112.00Union dues$ 30.0033.00Unemployment insurance32.9930.00County license1.00Total deductible expense$ 62.99$380.10Total all deductions claimed:$398.52$944.49*45  On brief, respondent concedes that petitioners are entitled to deductions totaling $316.81 for the year 1942 and $264 for the year 1943. Opinion LEMIRE, Judge: Respondent's disallowance of all deductions claimed by the petitioners in their 1942 and 1943 income tax returns puts the petitioners upon their proof of facts necessary to the allowance of the deductions. Petitioners' evidence as to all deductions claimed, except the one for payment of interest, consists largely of estimates and uncorroborated statements by petitioner, James F. Wilson. He testified that he made contributions to charity, paid taxes, and incurred deductible expenses in connection with his business and suffered certain losses. Documentary evidence was offered regarding the interest item paid. The testimony as to other items claimed in the returns was not supported by any documentary evidence. The total of all deductions claimed by the petitioners in their returns was $398.52 for the year 1942 and $944.49 for the year 1943. Respondent concedes that petitioners are entitled to deductions totaling $316.81 for the year 1942 and $264 for the year 1943. The petitioners, in effect, concede that they were not*46  entitled to the full amount of some of the deductions claimed. The type of evidence offered by the petitioners is unsatisfactory and of doubtful value in establishing their rights to these deductions. However, unsatisfactory as the proof may be, we have reached the conclusion, from such evidence as was offered, that petitioners are entitled to deductions totaling $325 for each of the years 1942 and 1943. We further find that the respondent correctly imposed the five per cent negligence penalty. Decision will be entered under Rule 50.