T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-145
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DARIN WARFIELD AND SHARON HARDIN, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 16306-05S. Filed September 13, 2006.
Darin Warfield and Sharon Hardin, pro se.
James H. Harris, Jr., for respondent.
RUWE, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to section 74631
in effect when the petition was filed. The decision to be
entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion
should not be cited as authority.
1
Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue. Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
Respondent determined deficiencies of $2,772 for 2002 and
$4,499 for 2003, and an accuracy-related penalty under section
6662(a) of $899.80 for 2003. After concessions by the parties,2
the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioners are
entitled to deduct $1,790 and $9,040 in cash charitable
contributions on their 2002 and 2003 returns, respectively;3 (2)
whether petitioners are entitled to deduct a $500 noncash
charitable contribution on each of their 2002 and 2003 returns;
and (3) whether petitioners are liable for the section 6662(a)
accuracy-related penalty for 2003.
Some facts have been stipulated and are so found. The
stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated
by this reference. When the petition was filed, petitioners
resided in Coatesville, Pennsylvania.
2
Respondent disallowed deductions for student loan interest
in 2002 and 2003 but has since conceded those deductions.
Respondent disallowed an education credit of $1,500 for 2002 and
$1,164 for 2003. Petitioners stipulated that they did not have
any qualified higher education expenses in 2002 or 2003.
Respondent determined unreported pension or annuity income of
$2,015 for 2003 but was unable to verify these amounts from the
third parties and conceded that issue.
3
Respondent originally disallowed petitioner’s entire
deductions for cash charitable contributions of $7,100 in 2002
and $15,000 for 2003, but respondent and Sharon Hardin have
stipulated that Ms. Hardin made $5,310 and $5,960 in charitable
contributions to Hutchinson Memorial U.A.M.E. Church in 2002 and
2003, respectively.
- 3 -
Petitioners timely filed returns for the taxable years 2002
and 2003. Petitioners’ returns were prepared by Chester
Muhammad.
During the examination, petitioners provided respondent’s
agent with computerized lists showing contributions allegedly
made to the Calvary Bible Church (the church) by Darin Warfield
and by Sharon Hardin during 2002 and 2003. The lists for Darin
Warfield show cash contributions of $103 on January 6, 2002, and
$97 every week thereafter (totaling $5,050) in 2002, and cash
contributions of $135 on January 5, 2003, and $126 every week
thereafter (totaling $6,561) in 2003. The lists for Sharon
Hardin show the same amounts contributed in both 2002 and 2003 as
the lists for Darin Warfield. None of the lists provided by
petitioners are dated or signed by a member of the church.
Petitioners provided to respondent’s counsel identical lists for
2002 and 2003 except for the fact that the caption “Calvary Bible
Church” had been eliminated. Subsequently, Sharon Hardin
provided substantiation for contributions that she made to
Hutchinson Memorial U.A.M.E. Church. See supra note 3.
Discussion
As a general rule, the Commissioner’s determinations set
forth in a notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the
taxpayer bears the burden of proving that these determinations
are in error. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115
- 4 -
(1933). Pursuant to section 7491(a), the burden of proof as to
factual issues may shift to the Commissioner where the taxpayer
introduces credible evidence and complies with substantiation
requirements, maintains records, and cooperates fully with
reasonable requests for witnesses, documents, and other
information. Petitioners have not met the requirements of
section 7491(a) because they have not met the substantiation
requirements or introduced credible evidence regarding the
deductions at issue.
1. Charitable Deductions
Deductions are strictly a matter of legislative grace and
the taxpayer bears the burden of proving entitlement to the
claimed deduction. Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner,
503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292
U.S. 435, 440 (1934). Section 170(a) allows as a deduction any
charitable contribution the payment of which is made within the
taxable year. Deductions for charitable contributions are
allowable only if verified under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary. Sec. 170(a)(1). In general, the regulations require
a taxpayer to maintain for each contribution of money one of the
following: (1) A canceled check; (2) a receipt from the donee;4
4
A receipt is required to contain the name of the donee,
the date of the contribution, and the amount of the contribution.
Sec. 1.170A-13(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.
- 5 -
or, in the absence of a check or receipt; (3) other reliable
written records. Sec. 1.170A-13(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.
For a contribution of property other than money, taxpayers
must maintain, for each contribution, a receipt showing the name
of the donee, the date and location of the contribution, and a
description of the property. Sec. 1.170A-13(b)(1), Income Tax
Regs. Where it is impractical to obtain a receipt, taxpayers
must maintain other written records indicating the name and
address of the donee, the date and location of the donation, a
description of the property, and its fair market value at the
time the contribution was made. Id.; sec. 1.170A-13(b)(2)(ii),
Income Tax Regs.
Section 1.170A-13(a)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs., which applies
to both money and property contributions, provides special rules
to determine the reliability of records on the basis of all the
facts and circumstances of the particular case and further
provides factors to consider in making this determination,
including: (1) Whether the writing that evidences the
contribution was written contemporaneously and (2) whether the
taxpayer keeps regular records of the contributions.5
Petitioners produced no canceled checks or receipts of their
cash contributions that are still at issue. The only records
5
Sec. 1.170A-13(b)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs., provides that
the reliability rules for records of money contributions also
apply to records of property contributions.
- 6 -
petitioners provided for the cash contributions still at issue
were the lists, which were created by their tax accountant,
showing weekly payments to the church. Sharon Hardin admitted
that these were prepared because she did not have any other proof
at the time. Petitioners provided no testimony or documentation
regarding their deductions for noncash contributions.
We find that petitioners failed to provide reliable evidence
to prove that they made the charitable contributions still in
dispute. We hold that petitioners are not entitled to any
deductions for charitable contributions in excess of the amounts
conceded by respondent.
2. Section 6662(a)
With respect to the accuracy-related penalty under section
6662(a), the Commissioner has the burden of production. Sec.
7491(c). To prevail, the Commissioner must produce sufficient
evidence that it is appropriate to apply the penalty to the
taxpayer. Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001).
Once the Commissioner meets his burden of production, the
taxpayer bears the burden of supplying sufficient evidence to
persuade the Court that the Commissioner’s determination is
incorrect. Id. at 447.
Section 6662(a) provides an accuracy-related penalty equal
to 20 percent of the underpayment required to be shown on a
return due to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations.
- 7 -
Sec. 6662(b)(1). For purposes of section 6662, the term
“negligence” includes “any failure to make a reasonable attempt
to comply with the provisions of * * * [the Code], and the term
‘disregard’ includes any careless, reckless, or intentional
disregard.” Sec. 6662(c). “Negligence” also includes any
failure by a taxpayer to keep adequate books and records or to
substantiate items properly. Sec. 1.6662-3(b), Income Tax Regs.
An accuracy-related penalty is not imposed with respect to
any portion of the underpayment as to which the taxpayer acted
with reasonable cause and in good faith. Sec. 6664(c)(1); see
Higbee v. Commissioner, supra at 448. This determination is made
based on all the relevant facts and circumstances. Higbee v.
Commissioner, supra at 448; sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.
“Relevant factors include the taxpayer’s efforts to assess his
proper tax liability, including the taxpayer’s reasonable and
good faith reliance on the advice of a professional such as an
accountant.” Higbee v. Commissioner, supra at 448-449.
Petitioners have failed to keep adequate records or to
substantiate properly the items in question. Respondent has
provided sufficient evidence to meet his burden of production.
Petitioners have not produced evidence to prove that respondent’s
determination of negligence is incorrect. We hold that
- 8 -
petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalty under
section 6662.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.