T.C. Memo. 1996-225
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JAMES K. ROBERTS, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 10322-93. Filed May 16, 1996.
The issues for decision are (1) whether
petitioner failed to report certain items of gross
income, (2) whether he is entitled to certain
disallowed Schedule C and Schedule A deductions, and
(3) whether he is liable for certain additions to tax.
1. Held: Except for one item, P has failed to
prove that the income items in dispute were not gross
income to him.
2. Held, further, P is not entitled to any of the
disputed deductions disallowed by R.
3. Held, further, R’s determination of the
disputed addition to tax under sec. 6651, I.R.C., is
sustained.
4. Held, further, R’s determination of additions
to tax under sec. 6653(a), I.R.C., is sustained.
- 2 -
5. Held, further, R’s determination of additions
to tax under sec. 6661, I.R.C., is sustained.
Samuel G. Weiss, for petitioner.
Jody Tancer and Mark A. Ericson, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
HALPERN, Judge: By notice of deficiency dated February 26,
1993 (the notice of deficiency), respondent determined
deficiencies in income tax and additions to tax as follows:
Additions to Tax
Sec.
Sec. 6653(a)(1) Sec. Sec.
Year Deficiency 6651(a)(1) or (a)(1)(A) 6653(a)(1)(B) 6661
1986 $7,267 $617 $394 50% of interest $1,817
due on $7,267
1987 24,372 1,522 2,127 50% of interest 6,072
due on $24,288
1988 7,632 --- 382 --- 1,908
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years at issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
Each of the parties has conceded certain issues, and the
parties have agreed to the resolution of certain other issues.
The issues remaining for decision are (1) whether petitioner
failed to report certain items of gross income, (2) whether he is
entitled to certain disallowed Schedule C and Schedule A
deductions, and (3) whether he is liable for certain remaining
additions to tax. The parties have stipulated numerous facts,
- 3 -
which we so find. The stipulations of fact filed by the parties
and attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.
Although the issues remaining for decision are principally
factual, we need find few facts in addition to those stipulated
by the parties. Accordingly, we have not divided our report into
two sections, one comprising our findings of fact and the other
setting forth our opinion. The additional findings we must make
are contained in the discussion that follows. After setting
forth certain background information, we shall address (1) the
adjustments made by respondent that remain in dispute and (2) the
additions to tax that remain in dispute. Petitioner bears the
burden of proof on all questions of fact. Rule 142(a).
I. Background
Petitioner resided in Huntington, New York, at the time the
petition in this case was filed.
During 1986, petitioner was employed as an automobile
salesman by two different automobile dealerships, Sports Imports
Inc. (Sports Imports) and Rallye Motors, Inc. (Rallye Motors).
Petitioner was unemployed from approximately April 1986, when his
employment by Sports Imports ended, until December 1986, when his
employment by Rallye Motors began. During 1987 and 1988,
petitioner was employed as an automobile salesman by Rallye
Motors. During 1987 and 1988, petitioner owned a horse racing
and breeding business. Petitioner is a frequent gambler.
- 4 -
For all of the years in issue, petitioner made his return of
Federal income tax on the basis of a calendar year. Petitioner
filed his 1987 Federal income tax return on July 6, 1988.
II. Disputed Adjustments
A. Unreported Income
In her notice of deficiency, respondent made adjustments
increasing petitioner's gross income for 1986, 1987, and 1988 on
account of certain unexplained bank deposits and cash
transactions. Petitioner does not dispute that the bank deposits
in question were made to accounts owned by him or that he
received the cash items in question. He claims, however, that
virtually all of those items were either loan repayments or
redeposits of cash carried around by petitioner on his person
and, thus, not items of gross income. We shall address the items
in question year by year.
1. 1986
During 1986, petitioner owned a bank account at North Fork
Bank and Trust Co., Southampton, New York (North Fork), account
No. 141568791 (the North Fork account). On the dates and in the
amounts indicated, petitioner made the following deposits to the
North Fork account:
Date Amount
5/15/86 $5,800
8/25/86 900
10/21/86 3,000
10/29/86 5,000
Total $14,700
- 5 -
On April 21, 1986, petitioner also deposited a check in the
amount of $3,000 to the North Fork account. That check is dated
April 18, 1986, and was received from "John Ballis Racing
Account".
"A bank deposit is prima facie evidence of income and
respondent need not prove a likely source of that income."
Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). Petitioner
seeks to rebut the presumption of income that arises from the
evidence of bank deposits by arguing that the deposits in
question for 1986 were loan repayments or petitioner's own cash:
(1) "The $14,700 in deposits to North Fork Bank represents loan
repayments or redeposits of * * * [petitioner's] own cash."
(2) "The $3,000 check from the John Baylis [sic] racing account
is not unreported income but rather is a repayment of a loan by
Mr. Baylis [sic]."
Petitioner has failed to persuade us that any of the 1986
deposits in question represent either loan repayments or
redeposits. The only evidence that those deposits represent loan
repayments or redeposits is petitioner's testimony to that
effect. We did not, however, find petitioner to be a reliable
witness. For example, with respect to the $900 deposited to the
North Fork account on August 25, 1986, petitioner testified that
he could not specifically remember that deposit but that he
assumed that it was a partial repayment of $14,000 that he had
lent to one Robert Libutti (Libutti) because "it was deposited
- 6 -
into my checking account." With respect to a deposit of $5,400
made on January 30, 1987, to the North Fork account, petitioner
testified that he could not remember whether it was a partial
repayment of the $14,000 that he testified he lent to Libutti or
a redeposit of a portion of the $5,800 that he had deposited on
May 15, 1986, and then withdrew: "The fact that it's deposited,
as such, is indicative that it is from Mr. Libutty [sic]."
Petitioner did not corroborate his testimony as to loan
repayments with written evidence of any loans. Moreover, he
provided no supporting testimony; he neither called Libutti or
John Ballis to testify nor showed that they were unavailable to
testify. If petitioner had made loans to them and received
repayments from them in 1986, they could have testified to that
effect. We infer from their failure to testify that their
testimony would have been negative to petitioner. McKay v.
Commissioner, 886 F.2d 1237, 1238 (9th Cir. 1989), affg. 89 T.C.
1063 (1987); Wichita Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner,
6 T.C. 1158, 1165 (1946), affd. 162 F.2d 513 (10th Cir. 1947).
We accord no weight to petitioner's testimony that the 1986
deposits were either loan repayments or redeposits of
petitioner's own cash. Petitioner has failed to rebut the
presumption that the 1986 deposits represented items of gross
income. Therefore, we sustain respondent's determination of a
deficiency as it relates to such items.
- 7 -
2. 1987
During 1987, petitioner continued to own the North Fork
account. On the dates and in the amounts indicated, petitioner
made the following deposits to the North Fork account:
Date Amount
1/30/87 $5,400
3/17/87 1,004
3/24/87 1,700
Total 8,104
During 1987, petitioner owned a bank account at Astoria
Federal Savings, Glen Cove, New York, account No. 651013169 (the
Astoria account). On the dates and in the amounts indicated,
petitioner made the following deposits to the Astoria account:
Date Amount
9/11/87 $7,000
12/28/87 1,000
Total 8,000
On June 26, 1987, North Fork received $4,000 in cash from
petitioner in partial consideration for the issuance of a
cashier’s check to petitioner.
On both June 23 and November 13, 1987, Trump Plaza Hotel and
Casino, Atlantic City, New Jersey (Trump), received chips in the
amount of $5,000 in partial repayment of a loan of $35,000 made
to petitioner on October 5, 1986.
With respect to the deposit of $5,400 to the North Fork
account on January 30, 1987, as related above, petitioner could
- 8 -
not remember whether that deposit was a partial repayment of the
$14,000 that he testified that he lent to Libutti or a redeposit
of a previous withdrawal. With respect to the deposit of $1,700
to the North Fork account on March 24, 1987, petitioner testified
that he had no specific recollection of that deposit, although it
could be another partial repayment from Libutti. With respect to
the deposit of $1,004 to the North Fork account on March 17,
1987, petitioner testified that he had no recollection as to its
nature. By his testimony, petitioner did not convince us that
the 1987 North Fork deposits were either loan repayments or
redeposits.
Petitioner has not directed us to any testimony (or other
evidence) with respect to the source of the deposit of $7,000 to
the Astoria account on September 11, 1987, or the payment of
$4,000 to North Fork on June 26, 1987. Petitioner has failed to
convince us that either item is either a loan repayment or a
redeposit of a previously withdrawn sum.
Petitioner has convinced us, however, that the deposit of
$1,000 to the Astoria account on December 28, 1987, is the
redeposit of $1,000 withdrawn from the North Fork account, and we
so find.
With respect to (1) all of the 1987 deposits to the North
Fork account, (2) the September 11, 1987, deposit to the Astoria
account, and (3) the June 26, 1987, payment to North Fork,
- 9 -
petitioner has failed to rebut the presumption that such items
represented items of gross income. See Tokarski v. Commissioner,
supra at 77. Therefore, we sustain respondent’s determination of
a deficiency as it relates to such items. We sustain no
deficiency with respect to the deposit of $1,000 to the Astoria
account on December 28, 1987.
Petitioner’s position with respect to the June 23 and
November 13, 1987, chip payments to Trump is unclear. In her
notice of deficiency, respondent included those items as
unreported income and described them as “Unexplained advances -
Libutti”. Petitioner testified that the chip payments, which
repaid a loan made to petitioner by Trump, were made by Libutti.
On brief, petitioner argues that the transactions do not evidence
unreported income because there is no allegation of unreported
gambling winnings. Petitioner’s argument is somewhat beside the
point. These are not items that result from a reconstruction of
petitioner’s income where there is no evidence that petitioner
actually received anything during the period at issue. If this
were such a situation, then petitioner might argue that, until
respondent links petitioner to an income-producing activity,
petitioner does not have the burden of proving he had no income.
See Llorente v. Commissioner, 649 F.2d 152 (2d Cir. 1981), affg.
in part, revg. in part, and remanding in part 74 T.C. 260 (1980)
(we would follow Llorente because it is likely that any appeal in
- 10 -
this case will be to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals; see
Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985
(10th Cir. 1971)); Jackson v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 394 (1979).
This, however, is not a situation where there is no evidence of
any receipts. Petitioner as much as concedes that Libutti paid a
debt on his behalf. Moreover, there is no question that a
taxpayer can realize income when another pays his debt. See,
e.g., Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 279 U.S. 716, 729
(1929) (“The discharge by a third person of an obligation to him
is equivalent to receipt by the person taxed.”). Respondent
bears no burden here to show a taxable source for the payments
made on petitioner’s behalf by Libutti. Tokarski v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. at 76-77. Petitioner bears the burden of
proving facts from which we could draw the conclusion that the
payments in question did not constitute gross income to
petitioner. That, petitioner has failed to do. Petitioner
having failed to carry his burden of proof, we sustain
respondent’s determination to the extent attributable to the
$10,000 in payments made to Trump by Libutti on petitioner’s
behalf.
3. 1988
During 1986, petitioner owned a bank account at Chase
Manhattan Bank, Roslyn, New York, account No. 061485 (the Chase
account). On July 1, 1988, petitioner deposited to the Chase
- 11 -
account a check in the amount of $2,870 received from Cutlass
Reality Syndication (Cutlass). The check is annotated: “For
Phone”.
Petitioner testified that the check was to reimburse him for
having a cellular phone installed in an automobile purchased by
Cutlass, a customer of Rallye Motors. Petitioner testified that,
in 1988, it was hard to find the specific type of phone that
Cutlass wanted, he knew where to get one, Cutlass gave him a
check for the approximate amount of the phone, and he got Cutlass
the phone. Petitioner’s testimony was uncorroborated.
Petitioner provided no receipt for his purchase of a phone, nor
did he provide any evidence of the work to install the phone.
Moreover, petitioner neither called anyone from Cutlass to
testify nor explained his failure to do so. We infer from those
failures that any testimony from Cutlass would have been negative
to petitioner. McKay v. Commissioner, 886 F.2d at 1238; Wichita
Terminal Elevator Co. v. Commissioner, 6 T.C. at 1165.
Petitioner has failed to prove that the $2,870 deposit to the
Chase account was a reimbursement for an amount expended on
account of Rallye, and we so find. The deposit remains
unexplained and, thus, is an item of gross income to petitioner.
Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. at 77. Accordingly, we
sustain respondent's determination of a deficiency as it relates
to that item.
- 12 -
B. Schedule A Deductions
1. 1987
a. Interest
In her notice of deficiency, respondent included an
adjustment disallowing an interest deduction in the amount of
$726. Although petitioner has assigned error with respect to
that adjustment, petitioner has failed to address that adjustment
on brief. Therefore, we conclude that petitioner has abandoned
the interest issue, and we sustain so much of respondent’s
determination as relates thereto. See Bernstein v. Commissioner,
22 T.C. 1146, 1152 (1954) (holding against the taxpayer with
respect to an issue because, among other things, the taxpayer did
not press the issue on brief), affd. 230 F.2d 603 (2d Cir. 1956);
Lime Cola Co. v. Commissioner, 22 T.C. 593, 606 (1954)
("Petitioners in their brief do not argue anything about * * *
[the issue]; and, although they do not expressly abandon the
issue * * * we presume they no longer press it.").
b. Contribution
In her notice of deficiency, respondent included an
adjustment disallowing a charitable contribution deduction in the
amount of $3,175. That amount is reflected as a cash
contribution on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, attached to
petitioner’s Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return 1987.
Petitioner testified that he had no specific recollection of cash
contributions except for change he put into a collection cup when
- 13 -
he purchased his morning coffee. Petitioner has failed to
convince us that he made a charitable contribution in cash of
$3,175, or, indeed, that he made any charitable contributions of
cash, during 1987. Petitioner has failed to carry his burden of
proof on this issue, and we sustain so much of respondent’s
determination as relates thereto.
2. 1988
a. Contribution
In her notice of deficiency, respondent included an
adjustment disallowing a charitable contribution deduction in the
amount of $2,760. That amount is reflected as a cash
contribution on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, attached to
petitioner’s Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return 1988.
Petitioner’s testimony with respect to cash contributions was the
same for 1988 as it was for 1987. Petitioner has failed to
convince us that he made a charitable contribution in cash of
$2,760, or, indeed, that he made any charitable contributions of
cash during 1988 beyond what, already, has been allowed by
respondent. Petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proof
on this issue, and we sustain so much of respondent’s
determination as relates thereto.
b. Miscellaneous Deductions
In her notice of deficiency, respondent included an
adjustment disallowing a miscellaneous deduction in the amount of
$2,760. Petitioner testified that, during his employment at
- 14 -
Rallye Motors, he incurred expenses incident to that employment
for which he did not feel it was proper to claim reimbursement.
Petitioner has provided no detail of any expenses he may have
incurred. Petitioner has failed to convince us that, during
1988, he incurred any unreimbursed, business-related expenses.
Petitioner has failed to carry his burden of proof on this issue,
and we sustain so much of respondent’s determination as relates
thereto.
3. Schedule C Deductions
In her notice of deficiency, respondent included adjustments
disallowing “Schedule C Expenses” for 1987 and 1988 in the
amounts of $5,331 and $4,745, respectively. After taking into
account concessions by the parties, only the following expenses
remain in dispute:
1987 1988
Car & truck $687 $815
Dues 185 122
Office, rent & utilities 1,651 1,691
Supplies 68 263
Those expenses were claimed by petitioner on Schedules C, Profit
or Loss From Business, attached to petitioner’s Forms 1040 for
1987 and 1988, respectively. Those Schedules C identify the
trade or business in question as horse racing and breeding.
Respondent has allowed substantial amounts as deductions in
connection with petitioner’s horse racing and breeding business.
Petitioner has not convinced us that he incurred deductible
- 15 -
expenses beyond what respondent already has allowed. For
instance, in support of the disputed car and truck expense for
1987, petitioner introduced into evidence a $300 invoice for the
installation of a car phone in a new Mercedes automobile.
Petitioner has failed to convince us that that expense did not
have substantial, if not exclusive, personal attributes. He has
failed to convince us that his 1988 car and truck expense related
to a vehicle used in his business. Also, he has failed to
provide any detail or supporting documents concerning the
category “Office, Rent, & Utilities”. He testified that the
category “Dues” included magazine subscriptions. Petitioner has
not proven that any of the disallowed expenses were incurred in
connection with his business of horse racing and breeding.
Accordingly, we sustain so much of respondent’s determination as
relates thereto.
III. Disputed Additions to Tax
A. Failure To File--1987
By her notice of deficiency, respondent determined an
addition to tax against petitioner under section 6651(a)(1) for
1987. Section 6651(a)(1) provides that, in the case of a failure
to file an income tax return by the due date, there shall be
imposed an addition to tax for such failure of 5 percent of the
amount of tax, reduced by timely payments and credits under
section 6651(b)(1), for each month or portion thereof during
which the failure continues, not exceeding 25 percent in the
- 16 -
aggregate unless such failure is due to reasonable cause and not
due to willful neglect.
Although petitioner assigned error to that determination,
petitioner has failed to propose any findings of fact with
respect thereto or advance any arguments in support of that
assignment. Petitioner is a calender-year taxpayer.
Petitioner’s 1987 return was filed on July 6, 1988, which is
prima facie untimely. See sec. 6072(a). Petitioner has failed
to prove that his untimely return was due to reasonable cause and
not due to willful neglect. Respondent’s determination of an
addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for 1987 is sustained.
B. Negligence
By her notice of deficiency, respondent determined additions
to tax against petitioner for negligence for all of the years in
issue. Section 6653(a) imposes one or more additions to tax
where an underpayment of tax is due to negligence or intentional
disregard of rules or regulations (hereafter, without
distinction, negligence). Section 6653(a)(1), for returns due in
1989, and section 6653(a)(1)(A), for returns due in 1987 and
1988, impose an addition to tax equal to 5 percent of the entire
underpayment if any portion of such underpayment is due to
negligence. Section 6653(a)(1)(B), for returns due in 1987 and
1988, imposes an addition to tax equal to 50 percent of the
interest payable under section 6601 with respect to the portion
of the underpayment due to negligence. "Negligence is lack of
- 17 -
due care or failure to do what a reasonable and ordinarily
prudent person would do under the circumstances." Neely v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947 (1985) (quoting Marcello v.
Commissioner, 380 F.2d 499, 506 (5th Cir. 1967), affg. in part
and remanding in part 43 T.C. 168 (1964)).
Although petitioner assigned error to respondent’s
determinations of additions to tax for negligence, petitioner has
failed to propose any findings of fact with respect thereto or
advance any persuasive arguments in support of that assignment.
On brief, petitioner simply states: “The statutory addition will
apply only if Petitioner is shown to be negligent or in
intentional disregard, and clearly that is not the case with
Petitioner.” Petitioner has the burden of proving that he was
not negligent. Rule 142(a). He has failed to carry that burden.
Respondent’s determinations of additions to tax under section
6653(a) are sustained, except to the extent necessary to reflect
concessions or agreements of the parties.
C. Substantial Understatement
By her notice of deficiency, respondent has determined
additions to tax under section 6661 for all of the years in
issue. For returns due before January 1, 1990, section 6661
provides for an addition to tax equal to 25 percent of the amount
of any underpayment attributable to a substantial understatement.
An understatement is "substantial" when the understatement for
the taxable year exceeds the greater of (1) 10 percent of the tax
- 18 -
required to be shown or (2) $5,000. The understatement is
reduced to the extent that the taxpayer has (1) adequately
disclosed his or her position, or (2) has substantial authority
for the tax treatment of an item. Sec. 6661; sec. 1.6661-6(a),
Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner has averred no facts in support of his assignment
that respondent erred in determining an addition to tax under
section 6661. Moreover, on brief, petitioner makes no argument
disputing respondent's section 6661 determinations except:
“Petitioner believes that the understatement penalty will not
apply when the understatement amount is recalculated.” Because
of concessions and settled issues, we cannot determine whether
petitioner’s understatements are substantial. We sustain
respondent’s determinations of additions to tax under section
6661 to the extent that petitioner’s understatements are
substantial. For no year has petitioner proven that he
(1) adequately disclosed his position or (2) has substantial
authority for the tax treatment of an item.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.