T.C. Memo. 2004-96
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
HAMID AND EOLINA BAJRAMOVIC, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 10259-02. Filed April 7, 2004.
Hamid and Eolina Bajramovic, pro sese.
Thomas D. Yang, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
HAINES, Judge: The petition in this case was filed in
response to the notice of deficiency sent to petitioner Hamid
Bajramovic and petitioner Eolina Bajramovic, collectively
petitioners. Respondent determined a deficiency of $795 for
petitioners’ 1999 Federal income tax. The sole issue for
- 2 -
decision is whether petitioners are entitled to a deduction for
moving expenses in 1999.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The facts in this case have been deemed stipulated pursuant
to Rule 91(f).1 At the time the petition was filed, petitioners
resided in Chicago, Illinois.
In 1998, petitioners and their two dependent children left
their home in the former Yugoslavia. Petitioners traveled to
Germany, where they applied to come to the United States.
In April 1998, petitioners and their children were granted
refugee status and were accepted for resettlement in the United
States. Petitioners were to relocate to Chicago, Illinois, but
they were unable to pay for the airline tickets until they
received a $2,074 loan from the International Organization for
Migration (IOM).
On June 8, 1998, petitioners and their children were issued
permanent resident cards. The next day petitioners and their
children flew from Frankfurt, Germany, to their new home in
Chicago, Illinois.
Petitioners filed a joint Federal income tax return for
1999, claiming a $5,340 deduction for moving expenses. On May
1
Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and the
Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.
- 3 -
17, 2002, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to petitioners
for 1999 determining an income tax deficiency of $795 after
denying the claimed moving expense deduction. On June 17, 2002,
petitioners timely filed a petition with the Court disputing
respondent’s determination.
OPINION
Ordinarily, moving expenses are considered nondeductible
family and living expenses. See Jorman v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1996-297. However, a taxpayer may deduct moving expenses
incurred during the taxable year in connection with the
taxpayer’s commencement of work if he meets the requirements of
section 217(a).2
The taxable year in issue is 1999. Petitioners moved to
Chicago, Illinois, in 1998, but claimed a deduction of $5,340 for
moving expenses in 1999. Petitioners provided no testimony or
evidence to prove they paid or incurred any moving expenses in
1999, nor did they offer a basis on which the Court could make an
estimate under Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 544 (2d Cir.
2
SEC. 217. MOVING EXPENSES
(a) Deduction Allowed.–-There shall be allowed as a
deduction moving expenses paid or incurred during the
taxable year in connection with the commencement of work by
the taxpayer as an employee or as a self-employed individual
at a new principal place of work.
- 4 -
1930).3 See Chiu v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-199;
Haberthier v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1984-377.
The parties stipulated to the fact that petitioners incurred
a moving expense of $2,074 for airline tickets in 1998.
Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to deduct moving expenses
incurred during 1998 on their 1999 Federal income tax return.
Sec. 217(a); see Meadows v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 51 (1976);
Shaumyan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-543, affd. without
published opinion 697 F.2d 297 (2d Cir. 1982); Kincheloe v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980-527.
Petitioners moved their family from the former Yugoslavia to
the United States in an attempt to start a new life. Petitioners
undoubtedly faced great hardships in their move. Keeping records
of their expenses and making sure they met the statutory
requirements for deducting moving expenses were understandably
the farthest things from their minds. However, the law is
specific in the requirements that must be met in order to deduct
moving expenses, and we are unable to afford petitioners any
relief under the law.
In reaching our holding herein, we have considered all
arguments made, and, to the extent not mentioned above, we
conclude that they are irrelevant or without merit.
3
We need not decide whether the burden of proof shifts to
respondent under sec. 7491(a) because the facts are not in
dispute and the issue is one of law.
- 5 -
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.