T.C. Memo. 1999-203
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
REGINA B. JACKSON, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 11251-98. Filed June 21, 1999.
Regina B. Jackson, pro se.
Roger W. Bracken, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COHEN, Chief Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies of
$8,964 and $11,970 in petitioner's Federal income taxes for 1993
and 1994, respectively, and additions to tax for each year under
sections 6651(a) and 6654(a). After concessions, the issues for
decision are whether petitioner must include in taxable income
Maryland State income tax refunds received in 1993; whether
petitioner is entitled to additional deductions for charitable
contributions, employee travel expenses, education expenses, and
- 2 -
job search expenses; and whether petitioner is liable for the
additions to tax determined by respondent. Unless otherwise
indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue
Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references
are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated
facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference.
Petitioner resided in Gaithersburg, Maryland, at the time that
she filed her petition.
During 1993 and 1994, petitioner was employed as a program
analyst by the Department of the Air Force. In 1994, petitioner
received a master's degree in general administration. During
1994, petitioner took educational courses related to her
attainment of the master's degree. She received wage income of
$48,147.38 in 1993 and $59,010.41 in 1994. She received interest
income of $179 in 1993 and $554 in 1994 from various financial
institutions. During 1993, petitioner received Maryland State
income tax refunds of $636 for 1990 and $1,156 for 1991, a total
of $1,792.
On the returns she prepared for 1993 and 1994, petitioner
claimed, among other things, the following items as deductions:
- 3 -
Item 1993 1994
Mortgage interest $9,628 $5,861
Real estate taxes 2,182 2,175
State and local income taxes 2,905 3,657
Charitable contributions by cash 5,106 5,800
Other than cash 500 2,300
Travel expenses 1,365 --
Education -- 2,500
Job search -- 3,202
During the years in issue, petitioner incurred the following
expenses, which respondent has conceded are deductible on
Schedule A of her returns:
Item 1993 1994
Mortgage interest $8,518 $5,861
Real estate taxes 2,182 2,174
State and local income taxes 2,905 3,657
Charitable contributions -- 2,425
In addition, during 1993 and 1994, petitioner made cash
contributions to her church.
Petitioner requested an extension of time to August 15,
1994, for filing her 1993 tax return. Her 1993 return was not
mailed before September 10, 1994. Petitioner did not send her
1993 or 1994 tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by
certified or registered mail and did not obtain any other proof
of mailing. Because the IRS could not locate any returns filed
by petitioner, an IRS auditor requested and received returns for
these years, which were signed and dated by petitioner
November 4, 1998.
- 4 -
Respondent determined that petitioner had failed to file
timely returns for the years in issue, that petitioner had income
based on reports by payers, and that petitioner was entitled to
the standard deduction for each year.
OPINION
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent's
determinations are erroneous. See Rule 142(a). With the
exception noted below, however, she has failed to present
evidence from which we can conclude that she is entitled to
exclude any income or deduct any expenses beyond the amounts
previously conceded by respondent. Her testimony was vague and
inconclusive. Notwithstanding the Court's specific suggestion
that the parties stipulate to additional documents after trial,
the only additional information submitted by petitioner led to
respondent's conceding that petitioner contributed $1,300 to the
Combined Federal Campaign in 1994.
Petitioner essentially asks us to accept the amounts claimed
on her returns in the categories of those items remaining in
dispute. Those returns, however, are not proof of the amounts
reported on the returns. Moreover, the stipulation specifically
contradicts the correctness of some of the items claimed by
petitioner. She acknowledges:
Wherein the petitioner provided respondent proof of
itemized deductions contained in the stipulation of
- 5 -
facts filed in the court, the respondent contended that
other issues remained unsubstantiated by petitioner.
Petitioner agreed with respondent's dispute that the
remaining issues were not provided to respondent. They
were not available at the time. Petitioner provided
testimony under oath before the court on the remaining
issues in an effort to substantiate her itemized
deductions.
Petitioner's testimony, however, failed to establish that the
State income tax refunds that she received in 1993 were not
includable in her taxable income or that she incurred deductible
expenses in the amounts that she claimed. With respect to the
State tax refunds, she presented no evidence that the amounts
deducted were not previously claimed as itemized deductions
consistent with her pattern for the years in issue. She
presented no evidence of actual payments of educational expenses
or job search expenses. It appears that the educational expenses
at least in part led to her master's degree and are not
deductible even if paid. Certain travel expenses that she
claimed apparently were eligible for reimbursement by her
employer. Petitioner has provided us with no basis for allowing
any deductions in these categories.
With respect to her contributions to a church, she testified
that she attended a church "maybe every other Sunday, sometimes
during the winter maybe once a month or every other month or so"
and:
- 6 -
I just drop in the basket maybe somewhere between
$5 and $10 -- five and ten dollars -- and as far as
tithes, I don't faithfully put in 10 percent tithes
every pay period, I do put in 10 percent tithes. I
can't attest to how frequently I do it -- maybe every
month, every other pay period or so.
This testimony, however, does not justify the amounts that
petitioner claimed. Respondent acknowledges that the testimony
would support a deduction of $260 per year for contributions to
the church. We agree, and petitioner is entitled to a
contribution deduction of $260 in 1993. For 1994, petitioner is
entitled to a contribution deduction of $2,685 consisting of $260
contributed to the church, $1,300 contributed to the Combined
Federal Campaign, and $1,125 in other contributions reflected in
canceled checks that have been stipulated. Petitioner presented
no evidence of noncash contributions and cannot be allowed any
further deductions.
Petitioner contends that she mailed her returns for 1993 and
1994 on September 10, 1994, and August 10, 1995, respectively.
She states that she "can only speculate that her returns were
improperly credited under a previous name, mis-filed, or lost by
the IRS." In her posttrial memorandum, petitioner asserts for
the first time that the statute of limitations bars the notice
for 1993 and that, therefore, all issues for that year are
"moot". Her statute of limitations claim is not timely. See
- 7 -
Rule 39. In any event, we are not persuaded that petitioner's
returns were filed as she asserts.
Petitioner's testimony provided neither details nor
corroboration that she mailed her returns on the dates that she
claims to have mailed them. Her speculation as to possible
misfiling or loss by the IRS does not identify any alternative
name that she has ever used or any reason to believe that returns
for 2 consecutive years, filed 11 months apart, would have been
misplaced. Petitioner presented no reliable evidence that she
secured an extension of time to file her 1994 return or that she
had reasonable cause for belated filing of either return. Even
by petitioner's account, her returns were late.
Because petitioner's returns were not timely even if mailed
on the dates that she claims to have signed them, section
7502(a), which treats timely mailing as timely filing, has no
application to this case. See Maxon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1994-494. For purposes of the statute of limitations under
section 6501(a) or to avoid additions to tax under section
6651(a), returns are filed only when they are actually received
by the IRS. See Walden v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 947, 951-952
(1988); Boone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-102; Diego
Investors-IV v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-630; see also
Belser v. Commissioner, 174 F.2d 386, 390-391 (4th Cir. 1949),
- 8 -
affg. 10 T.C. 1031 (1948). So far as the record reflects,
returns were not received by the IRS prior to November 1998,
after the notice of deficiency was sent and the petition in this
case was filed. The additions to tax under section 6651(a) must
be sustained. The additions to tax under section 6654 are
mandatory absent exceptions not here applicable. See
Grosshandler v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 1, 20-21 (1980).
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.