T.C. Summary Opinion 2007-100
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
RHONDA D. WHITE, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 11291-06S. Filed June 19, 2007.
Rhonda D. White, pro se.
Ashley F. Giles, for respondent.
COHEN, 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 shall not be treated as precedent for any other
case.
- 2 -
Respondent determined a deficiency of $5,761 in petitioner’s
Federal income tax for 2002 and an addition to tax of $1,326.75
under section 6651(a)(1). Unless otherwise indicated, all
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.
The issues for decision are whether petitioner is entitled
to any deductions disallowed in the statutory notice of
deficiency and whether petitioner is entitled to relief under
section 6015.
Background
Certain facts have been deemed stipulated pursuant to
Rule 91(f). Petitioner resided in Georgia at the time that her
petition was filed. On March 24, 2004, she filed a joint Federal
income tax return for 2002 on a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income
Tax Return, with Xavier White. Petitioner filed a Complaint for
Divorce from Xavier White on November 28, 2005, and the Final
Judgment and Decree was entered on January 17, 2006.
After reviewing the Form 1040 filed by petitioner and her
former husband, respondent disallowed the following claimed
itemized deductions:
(a) $17,028 of medical and dental expenses;
(b) $8,471 of gifts to charity; and
(c) Job expenses and other miscellaneous deductions
comprised of:
(1) $16,649 of unreimbursed vehicle mileage
expense;
- 3 -
(2) $1,258 of uniform expense;
(3) $468 of cell phone expense;
(4) $216 of pager expense;
(5) $185 of tax preparation fees; and
(6) $2,450 of attorney and accounting fees.
In her petition, petitioner maintains that she “was unaware and
not privy to what was filed” on the tax return submitted for
2002, and she requests relief from joint and several liability on
a joint return.
In support of her claimed deductions, petitioner provided
copies of certain checks and other documents. Many of the checks
appeared to be for personal expenses. For example, checks were
written to chain drugstores, department stores, discount stores,
and shoe stores, with no corroboration or explanation that the
items purchased were deductible items. An unsigned document
purportedly listing cash contributions was not accompanied by any
corroborating information, and no evidence of the contributions
was introduced at trial. Documents purporting to record noncash
charitable contributions contained what appeared to be
exaggerated and patently unreasonable amounts for used property
allegedly contributed to a charitable organization. The
organization shown on the purported receipts was not the
organization identified on the Form 1040.
At the time of trial, petitioner’s testimony focused on her
claim that her former husband recommended the tax preparer for
the 2002 tax return, that he subsequently failed to cooperate
- 4 -
with respect to tax matters, and that she relied on her husband
with respect to the 2002 tax return. She acknowledged, however,
that she had met with the tax return preparer, had provided
information to the tax preparer, and had signed her name and her
husband’s name to the 2002 return.
Discussion
Aside from the stipulated documents that had been presented
to respondent’s Appeals officer, petitioner presented no evidence
with respect to the disallowed deductions claimed on her 2002
Federal income tax return. She offered no reasonable cause that
would avoid the addition to tax under section 6651(a) for late
filing of the return. She addressed only her contention that her
former husband should be responsible for the deficiency.
Section 6015 provides for relief from joint and several
liability only in certain circumstances. Section 6015(b) applies
only if, among other things, there is an understatement of tax
attributable to erroneous items of the other individual filing
the joint return (Xavier White), and the person seeking relief
(petitioner) establishes that, in signing the return, she did not
know, and had no reason to know, that there was such an
understatement. Petitioner has failed to establish either of
those requirements. Her signature appears on the checks tendered
to substantiate the disallowed deductions, and she directly
participated in preparation of the joint return.
- 5 -
Section 6015(c) provides procedures for an individual party
to a joint return to elect to limit liability to the amount of a
deficiency properly allocable to that individual. Petitioner has
not made such an election and, in any event, has not shown that
any portion of the deficiency is properly allocable to Xavier
White. Petitioner’s knowledge with respect to the items giving
rise to the deficiency also disqualifies her under section
6015(c). Sec. 6015(c)(3)(C).
Section 6015(f) provides for equitable relief if, taking
into account all of the facts and circumstances, it is
inequitable to hold an individual liable for a deficiency. (A
similar limitation applies to relief under section 6015(b).)
Taking into account all of the facts and circumstances shown in
this case, we are not persuaded that it is inequitable to hold
petitioner liable for the deficiency and addition to tax for
2002. That deficiency results from overstatement of deductions
on a return belatedly prepared with her participation, on which
she signed her own name and her husband’s. As far as the record
reflects, the excessive deductions claimed were based on
representations by petitioner as to the nature of expenditures
represented by checks signed by her and by alleged receipts
bearing her name. See Rev. Proc. 2003-61, 2003-2 C.B. 296. She
is not entitled to relief under section 6015.
- 6 -
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.