T.C. Memo. 1998-257
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
MARIA M. MASLOFF, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 1216-97. Filed July 14, 1998.
Maria M. Masloff, pro se.
Christine V. Olsen, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHIECHI, Judge: Respondent determined the following
deficiencies in, and additions to, petitioner's Federal income
tax:
- 2 -
Additions to Tax
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1)1 Sec.6654
1988 $58,987 $14,230 $3,626
1989 4,666 100 --
1992 123,520 30,880 5,389
The issues remaining for decision are:
(1) Should the determinations of respondent in the notice of
deficiency (notice) that the parties have not resolved be
sustained? We hold that they should.
(2) Is petitioner entitled for 1988 to a claimed loss for an
alleged investment? We hold that she is not.
(3) Is petitioner entitled for 1988 to increase her basis in
certain real property that she sold during that year? We hold
that she is not.
(4) Is petitioner entitled for 1992 to deduct approximately
one-half of certain mortgage interest that she paid during that
year in Schedule A and one-half of such interest in Schedule E?
We hold that she is not.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts (stipulation) and the exhibits attached
thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.
Petitioner resided in Hesperia, California, at the time the
petition was filed.
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
effect for the years at issue. All Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 3 -
Petitioner did not file a Federal income tax return (return)
for 1988 or 1989.
During 1988, petitioner received wage income from
Transamerican Plastics Corporation in the amount of $36,400,
pension income from Prudential Insurance Company in the amount of
$1,801, and interest income from Bank of America, Home Federal
Savings, First Interstate Bank, and Chino Valley Bank in the
amounts of $44, $242, $179, and $2, respectively.
In the late 1960's, petitioner and her husband purchased a
two-bedroom, one-bath house on West El Repetto Drive in Monterey
Park, California (Repetto property). Petitioner and her husband
resided in the Repetto property for a few years and then
converted it to a rental property which they leased for most of
the 20 years that petitioner owned it. During 1988, petitioner
sold the Repetto property for $175,000. At settlement of the
sale of the Repetto property, various amounts were credited and
debited against that sales price, as reflected in the final
settlement statement with respect to that sale.
During 1989, petitioner received wage income from
Transamerican Plastics Corporation in the amount of $21,461,
pension income from Prudential Insurance Company in the amount of
$1,791, and interest income from Bank of America, Home Federal
Savings, First Interstate Bank, and Coast Bank in the amounts of
$12, $44, $12, and $699, respectively.
- 4 -
During 1989, petitioner received gambling winnings totaling
$7,025 and is entitled to a Schedule A gambling loss in the same
amount.
During 1992, petitioner received pension income from
Prudential Insurance Company in the amount of $1,851.
In 1989, petitioner purchased vacant land on Harper Lake
Road in San Bernardino County (Harper Lake Road property) for
$48,000. In 1992, petitioner sold that property for $160,000.
At settlement of the sale of the Harper Lake Road property,
various amounts were credited and debited against that sales
price, as reflected in the seller's closing statement with
respect to that sale. Petitioner incurred deductible costs
associated with the sale of the Harper Lake Road property in the
amount of $17,402. Petitioner realized a gain for 1992 from the
sale of that property in the amount of $94,598.
Petitioner and respondent resolved by agreement many of the
determinations in the notice, as set forth in the stipulation.
We therefore turn to the issues that remain for our
consideration. Presumably in an effort to show that respondent's
determination under section 6651(a)(1) for 1992 is wrong,
petitioner contends that she filed a return for that year.
However, the record is devoid of any evidence to support that
contention. Petitioner also contends that she is entitled to
(1) a loss for 1988 from an alleged investment, (2) an increase
- 5 -
in her basis in certain property that she sold during 1988, and
(3) deductions for 1992 of approximately one-half of certain
mortgage interest in Schedule A and one-half of such interest in
Schedule E.2 The only evidence in the record to support those
contentions is the general, vague, and conclusory testimony of
petitioner.
Petitioner has the burden of showing (1) error in
respondent's determinations in the notice and (2) her entitlement
to any new matters that she claimed at trial. Rule 142(a); Welch
v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). On the record before us,
we find that petitioner has failed to carry her burden of proof
on those determinations of respondent in the notice that she and
respondent did not resolve in the stipulation and on those
matters that she raised at trial.
To reflect the foregoing and the agreement of the parties
that is set forth in the stipulation,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
2
Petitioner and respondent agreed in the stipulation that
petitioner is entitled for 1992 to a Schedule A mortgage interest
deduction in the amount of $13,128. Although it is not
altogether clear, it appears that petitioner is now claiming that
she is entitled to deduct about one-half of that interest in
Schedule E.