T.C. Summary Opinion 2007-61
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
TAQUISA DEVON MACKEY, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 6749-06S. Filed April 23, 2007.
Taquisa Devon Mackey, pro se.
Jeffrey S. Luechtefeld and Francis C. Mucciolo, for
respondent.
PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This case was heard
pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal
Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed. Pursuant to
section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by
any other court, and this opinion should not be treated as
precedent for any other case. Unless otherwise indicated,
subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
- 2 -
effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Respondent determined a $4,575 deficiency in petitioner
Taquisa Devon Mackey and Arvin D. Mackey’s 2002 income tax and a
$3,447 deficiency in petitioner’s 2003 income tax. After
concessions,1 the issue for decision is whether petitioner is
entitled to claimed itemized deductions.
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits, as well as
additional exhibits introduced at trial, are incorporated herein
by this reference. Petitioner Taquisa Devon Mackey resided in
Winter Park, Florida, at the time the petition was filed.2
Petitioner was married to Arvin D. Mackey in 2002 and filed
a joint Federal income tax return for that year. For 2003
petitioner filed as head of household. During the years at issue
petitioner worked as a health care coordinator and an infection
control nurse. Petitioner claimed various itemized deductions
for 2002 and 2003 including medical expenses, taxes, home and
1
For 2002, respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled
to a deduction for interest expense in the amount of $11,329 and
a deduction for taxes in the amount of $893. For 2003,
respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled to a $600 child
tax credit and a $600 child care credit.
2
Although the notice of deficiency for 2002 was issued to
both Arvin D. and Taquisa Devon Mackey, only Ms. Mackey filed a
petition with this Court.
- 3 -
investment interest, contributions, and miscellaneous itemized
deductions.
Other than amounts allowed by respondent in the notices of
deficiency or immediately prior to trial, petitioner did not
attempt to substantiate the claimed deductions. Petitioner
asserts that the tax returns in issue were prepared by a
representative of Economy Income Tax Services (EITS). Petitioner
further suggests that EITS defrauded many taxpayers, including
herself, and that the amounts reflected on the returns are
inaccurate and not based on reality. Petitioner argues that the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was complicit in permitting EITS
to continue to prepare returns while under investigation by the
IRS.
Discussion
Burden of Proof
In general, the Commissioner’s determinations set forth in a
notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears
the burden of showing that the determinations are in error. Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Pursuant
to section 7491(a), the burden of proof as to factual matters
shifts to the Commissioner under certain circumstances.
Petitioner has neither alleged that section 7491(a) applies nor
established her compliance with the requirements of section
7491(a)(2)(A) and (B) to substantiate items, maintain records,
- 4 -
and cooperate fully with respondent’s reasonable requests.
Petitioner therefore bears the burden of proof.
Petitioner’s Claimed Itemized Deductions
Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the
taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to any
deduction claimed. Rule 142(a); New Colonial Ice Co. v.
Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934). The taxpayer is required to
maintain records that are sufficient to enable the Commissioner
to determine his correct tax liability. See sec. 6001; sec.
1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.
Petitioner provided no information as to itemized deductions
and effectively conceded the issue. Respondent is accordingly
sustained on this issue, except to the extent of concessions made
prior to trial. Petitioner’s assertion that she should not be
liable for tax because her return preparer may have violated
certain laws is misplaced. Congress has provided the
Commissioner with remedies that may be enforced against dishonest
return preparers. See secs. 6694, 6695, 7407; Hyler v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-26. There is no provision in law,
however, that would relieve petitioner of her personal liability
for a tax deficiency on account of a dishonest return preparer.
Hyler v. Commissioner, supra. We note that a taxpayer may be
relieved from an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a)
where the taxpayer reasonably relies on a return preparer. ASAT,
- 5 -
Inc. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 147, 176 (1997). As noted above,
however, respondent did not determine any penalties in this case
and, accordingly, this exception does not apply.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.