T.C. Memo. 2005-70
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
KEVIN RYAN ROBINSON, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 16101-03. Filed April 4, 2005.
Kevin Ryan Robinson, pro se.
Steven M. Webster, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SWIFT, Judge: This matter is before us under Rule 121 on
respondent’s motion for summary judgment with respect to
petitioner’s 1997, 1998, and 2000 Federal income tax deficiencies
and additions to tax.
Respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to
petitioner’s Federal income taxes as follows:
- 2 -
Additions to Tax
Year Deficiency Sec. 6651(a)(1) Sec. 6654(a)
1997 $55,151 $12,388 $2,971
1998 25,421 5,720 1,154
2000 11,687 838 --
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.
Background
Under Rule 91(f)(3), some of the facts have been deemed
stipulated and are so found.1
At the time the petition was filed, petitioner was a
resident of Edgefield, South Carolina.
For 1996, a year not in issue, petitioner filed his 1996
individual Federal income tax return and indicated thereon a
1
On July 9, 2004, respondent filed a Motion To Show Cause
Why Proposed Facts In Evidence Should Not Be Accepted As
Established (Rule 91(f) motion). On July 27, 2004, the Court
issued an order granting respondent’s Rule 91(f) motion and
directing petitioner to file a response to the motion by Aug. 27,
2004. The July 27, 2004, order also explained that failure by
petitioner to respond to any matter set forth in respondent’s
Rule 91(f) motion, including the proposed stipulation of facts,
would result in such matter’s being deemed stipulated for
purposes of the instant case. Petitioner failed to respond to
respondent’s Rule 91(f) motion, and, on Sept. 8, 2004, the Court
made absolute its July 27, 2004, order, and the facts set forth
in the proposed stipulation of facts were deemed stipulated for
purposes of trial and opinion herein.
- 3 -
head-of-household filing status and claimed four exemptions. For
1996, $25,184 in Federal income taxes was paid by petitioner.
During 1997, petitioner received income from various sources
as follows:
1997 Income Amount
Wages--Homes of the CSRA, Inc. $186,925
Nonemployee compensation--Belgravia Financial
Services, LLC 1,485
Refund of State income tax 870
Total $189,280
Additionally, during 1997, $92 in Federal income taxes was
withheld from petitioner’s wages.
During 1998, petitioner received income from various sources
as follows:
1998 Income Amount
Wages--Homes of the CSRA, Inc. $105,152
Interest income 365
Total $105,517
During 1998, no Federal income taxes were withheld from
petitioner’s wages.
For 1999, a year not in issue, petitioner filed his 1999
individual Federal income tax return and indicated thereon a
single filing status and claimed four exemptions. For 1999,
$3,154 in Federal income taxes was paid by petitioner.
During 2000, petitioner received income from various sources
as follows:
- 4 -
2000 Income Amount
Wages--Genfinity Corporation $43,112
Wages--Apple Homes Acquisition Corporation 18,015
Total $61,127
Additionally, during 2000, $7,962 in Federal income taxes was
withheld from petitioner’s wages.
For 1997, 1998, and 2000, petitioner has not filed Federal
income tax returns. Upon audit for each of the years 1997, 1998,
and 2000, respondent charged petitioner with the above respective
income, treated petitioner as having a single filing status with
one exemption, allowed petitioner a standard deduction, and
determined the tax deficiencies and additions to tax at issue
herein.
On September 22, 2003, petitioner filed with the Court his
petition in which petitioner requested a redetermination of his
1997, 1998, and 2000 Federal income tax liabilities.
On November 29, 2004, respondent filed under Rule 121 the
instant motion for summary judgment. On January 19, 2005,
petitioner filed with the Court a response to respondent’s motion
for summary judgment in which petitioner made only conclusory
allegations with respect to respondent’s determinations of
petitioner’s tax liabilities and additions to tax.
- 5 -
Discussion
Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, answers to
interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other
acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a
decision may be rendered as a matter of law.” Rule 121(b); Beery
v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 184, 187 (2004).
The party opposing the motion “may not rest upon the mere
allegations or denials of such party’s pleading,” but the
objecting party’s response “must set forth specific facts showing
that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Rule 121(d); see also
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (relating to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56). Summary judgment is appropriate where the
objecting party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and
on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Id.
at 322.
However, the burden of establishing the nonexistence of a
“genuine issue” is on the party moving for summary judgment, and
where the evidentiary matter in support of the motion does not
establish the absence of a genuine issue, summary judgment is to
be denied even if the objecting party does not submit opposing
evidentiary matter. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144,
160 (1970).
- 6 -
We are satisfied herein that there is no genuine issue as to
the amount of income petitioner received in 1997, 1998, and 2000
and that a decision may be rendered with regard thereto as a
matter of law.
The facts relating to petitioner’s wages, nonemployee
compensation, refund of State income taxes, and interest income
for 1997, 1998, and 2000, as determined by respondent in the
notices of deficiency, are established by virtue of petitioner’s
deemed admissions. Further, petitioner’s response to
respondent’s motion for summary judgment with regard to
petitioner’s income is vague and is inadequate to avoid summary
judgment with regard thereto.
With regard, however, to petitioner’s filing status and to
the number of exemptions to which petitioner is entitled, we are
not prepared to enter summary judgment. In his petition herein,
involving 1997, 1998, and 2000, petitioner claimed head-of-
household filing status and his own and three additional
exemptions. The evidence establishes that for 1996 petitioner
claimed head-of-household filing status and that for both 1996
and 1999 petitioner claimed four exemptions without any apparent
adjustment thereto by respondent.
In respondent’s proposed stipulation of facts, respondent
did not ask for any stipulation from petitioner as to
petitioner’s filing status nor as to the number of exemptions to
- 7 -
which petitioner is entitled. Therefore, we have no deemed
admissions relating to those matters. Further, in his motion for
summary judgment, although respondent seeks summary judgment as
to the bottom line tax deficiencies and the additions to tax he
determined against petitioner, respondent does not mention
specifically petitioner’s filing status nor the number of
exemptions to which petitioner is entitled. Accordingly, those
matters would appear to be still in issue, and summary judgment
would be premature with regard thereto.
With regard to the additions to tax determined by respondent
in respondent’s notices of deficiency, respondent in his motion
for summary judgment specifically refers to and asserts
petitioner’s liability for each of the additions to tax. By
attachments to his Rule 91(f) motion and to his motion for
summary judgment, respondent establishes petitioner’s failure to
file his 1997, 1998, and 2000 Federal income tax returns, and
respondent establishes the Federal income taxes withheld from
petitioner’s wages with regard to his 1997, 1998, and 2000
Federal income tax liabilities.
In his response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment,
petitioner gives no explanation as to why his 1997, 1998, and
2000 Federal income tax returns were not timely filed and as to
why there were underpayments of his 1997 and 1998 Federal
estimated income taxes. Respondent has met his burden of
- 8 -
production under section 7491(c) with regard to the section
6651(a)(1) additions to tax for 1997, 1998, and 2000 and the
section 6654(a) additions to tax for 1997 and 1998, and
petitioner has not provided any facts that raise any issue as to
his liability therefor.
For the reasons stated, we shall grant partial summary
judgment with regard to the amount of petitioner’s 1997, 1998,
and 2000 income as determined by respondent and with regard to
the applicability of the additions to tax under section
6651(a)(1) for 1997, 1998, and 2000 and section 6654(a) for 1997
and 1998, but we deny summary judgment with regard to
petitioner’s filing status and exemptions for each of the years
in issue.2
An appropriate order will
be issued.
2
Depending on the eventual outcome of the filing status
and exemption issues, the amount of petitioner’s tax deficiencies
and additions to tax may be adjusted from the amounts set forth
in respondent’s notices of deficiency.