MUHAMMAD v. COMMISSIONER

T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-7

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

RENEE MUHAMMAD, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 5970-04S. Filed January 10, 2005.

Renee Muhammad, pro se.

William L. Blagg and Laura A. McKenna, for respondent.

DEAN, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to

the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect at the time the petition was filed. Unless otherwise

indicated, all subsequent section references are to the Internal

Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule

references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
 - 2 -

The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court,

and this opinion should not be cited as authority.

Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's Federal

income tax of $3,240 for 2002. After concessions,1 the issues

remaining for decision are whether petitioner is entitled to:

(1) Deductions on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, in excess of

those allowed by respondent; and (2) an education credit.

Background

The stipulation of facts and the exhibits received into

evidence are incorporated herein by reference. Petitioner

resided in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, at the time the petition was

filed.

Petitioner, a second grade teacher, timely filed her

electronic Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for

2002. On Schedule A, petitioner claimed itemized deductions of

$16,307. On Form 8863, Education Credits, petitioner claimed an

education credit of $1,500.

Petitioner's itemized deductions consisted of noncash

contributions of $500; cash contributions of $3,366; taxes of

$59; and miscellaneous expenses of $13,055, subject to the 2

percent of adjusted gross income limitation, or $12,382.

Petitioner did not provide any substantiation for her claimed

1
Respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled to a
charitable contribution deduction of $2,720 and a deduction for
union dues of $480.
 - 3 -

deductions except some receipts for manicures, the costs of which

she deducted as ordinary and necessary business expenses.

Respondent disallowed all of petitioner's claimed itemized

deductions.

Petitioner claimed an education credit for school supplies

she had purchased for students in her class over the course of 5

years. Petitioner did not have receipts for the items she

claimed she purchased. Respondent disallowed petitioner's

claimed education credit.

Discussion

The Commissioner's determinations are presumed correct, and

the taxpayer bears the burden of proving otherwise. Welch v.

Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Moreover, deductions are a

matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of

proving that she is entitled to any deduction claimed. New

Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934); Welch v.

Helvering, supra. This includes the burden of substantiation.

Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 90 (1975), affd. per curiam

540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976). Under section 7491(a)(1), the

burden of proof may shift to the Commissioner. Because

petitioner failed to meet the requirements of section 7491(a)(2),

the burden of proof does not shift to respondent.

Petitioner has not provided any evidence that the

expenditures were ordinary and necessary expenses of her
 - 4 -

employment as a teacher as opposed to personal expenditures made

for herself or made gratuitously for her students. She has not

provided any evidence that would substantiate an allowance of

itemized deductions in excess of those allowed by respondent.

Respondent's determination is sustained.

For eligible individuals, section 25A allows credits against

tax for qualified tuition and related expenses paid by the

taxpayer during the taxable year. The Hope Scholarship Credit

applies to 100 percent of so much of the qualified tuition and

related expenses paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year

(for education furnished to the eligible student during any

academic period beginning in such taxable year) as does not

exceed $1,000, plus 50 percent of such expenses so paid as

exceeds $1,000 but does not exceed the applicable limit. Sec.

25A(b). In order to be eligible for the Hope Scholarship Credit,

a student must be enrolled at least half time at an eligible

educational institution for any portion of the taxable year.

Sec. 25A(b)(2)(B) and (3).

The Lifetime Learning Credit is an amount equal to 20

percent of so much of the qualified tuition and related expenses

paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year (for education

furnished during any academic period beginning in such taxable

year) as does not exceed $5,000 in the case of taxable years

beginning before January 1, 2003. See sec. 25A(c). Section
 - 5 -

25A(f) defines "qualified tuition and related expenses" as

tuition and fees required for the enrollment or attendance of the

taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, or the taxpayer's dependent at

an eligible educational institution.

Petitioner is not entitled to a Hope Scholarship Credit

under section 25A(b) because she failed to even allege that she

was a half-time student for any portion of 2002. See sec.

25A(b)(2)(B) and (3). Petitioner is not entitled to a Lifetime

Learning Credit for 2002 because she failed to show that during

2002 she paid "qualified tuition and related expenses" within the

meaning of section 25A(c)(1) and as defined in section 25A(f)(1).

At trial, she explained that the expenditures were paid for the

benefit of her students over the course of 5 years. Such

expenditures do not constitute qualified tuition and related

expenses under section 25A. Respondent's disallowance of

petitioner's claimed education credit is sustained.

Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered

under Rule 155.