T.C. Memo. 2008-114
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JULIE K. MCCAMMON, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 10677-06. Filed April 24, 2008.
Julie K. McCammon, pro se.
Alisha M. Harper, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
GOEKE, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $49,308
in petitioner’s Federal income tax and an accuracy-related
penalty of $9,861.60 under section 6662(a) for 2003.1
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code
(Code) for the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
The issues for decision are:
(1) Whether petitioner is liable for tax on $8 of interest
income. We hold that she is;
(2) whether petitioner is liable for tax on $2,224 of
dividend income. We hold that she is;
(3) whether petitioner is liable for tax on $191,307 of
wages. We hold that she is;
(4) whether petitioner is liable for tax on $190,567 of
flow-through income from her wholly owned S corporation. We hold
that she is;
(5) whether petitioner is liable for an accuracy-related
penalty under section 6662(a) of $22,821.40. We hold that she is
liable for this penalty; and
(6) whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under
section 6673. We hold that she is liable for this penalty.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulated facts and the accompanying exhibits are
incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in
West Virginia at the time this petition was filed.
Petitioner is a medical doctor and the sole shareholder and
president of Julie McCammon, M.D., Inc. (petitioner’s S
corporation).
- 3 -
Petitioner filed a Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax
Return, for tax year 2003 showing zero tax liability. Attached
to petitioner’s return was a statement explaining that petitioner
did not have any income “in a constitutional sense”.
Petitioner’s S corporation filed a Form 1120S, U.S. Income
Tax Return for an S Corporation, showing ordinary income of
$190,567 after deductions, including a deduction for compensation
of officers in the amount of $191,308. This $191,308 reflects
income paid to petitioner as president of petitioner’s S
corporation. A portion of respondent’s deficiency determination
was based on this unreported wage income.
Attached to the Form 1120S was a Schedule K-1, Shareholder’s
Share of Income, Credits, Deductions, etc., listing petitioner as
the 100-percent shareholder and showing ordinary income from
trade or business activities in the amount of $190,567.
Respondent examined petitioner’s Form 1040 and determined,
using information from third-party payors, that petitioner had
understated her income by $194,881. The understatement included
unreported income from interest, dividends, and wages. It did
not include the ordinary income of petitioner’s S corporation.
Respondent sent petitioner a statutory notice of deficiency dated
April 14, 2006, for the 2003 tax year.
On May 30, 2006, petitioner mailed a letter to the Court
that was filed on June 5, 2006, as an imperfect petition. The
- 4 -
Court ordered petitioner to submit a proper amended petition to
conform with the Rules. On August 28, 2006, the Court received
and filed petitioner’s amended petition. In the amended
petition, petitioner sets forth specific reasons she disagrees
with respondent’s notice of deficiency.
In response, respondent filed an answer to the amended
petition. In addition, respondent filed a motion for leave to
file amendment to answer to amended petition seeking to increase
petitioner’s tax deficiency and penalty under section 6662(a).
The increases in the deficiency and penalty were based upon
respondent’s inclusion of the ordinary income of petitioner’s S
corporation in petitioner’s income.
The Court granted respondent’s motion to amend, and the
amendment to answer to amended petition was filed reflecting a
recalculated and increased deficiency and penalty for the 2003
tax year. The increased deficiency and penalty were: (1) A
deficiency in tax of $114,107, and (2) a penalty of $22,821.40
under section 6662(a). Respondent’s position was that petitioner
received but failed to report: (1) $8 of interest income from H.
Arthur Samet Childrens Trust; (2) $2,224 of dividends from H.
Arthur Samet Childrens Trust; (3) $191,307 of wages from
petitioner’s S corporation; and (4) $190,567 of flow-through
income from petitioner’s S corporation.
- 5 -
At trial petitioner orally moved for a continuance, which
was denied. Petitioner claimed that she was unprepared and
unable to proceed because she had planned on having her C.P.A.
(who was not admitted to practice before this Court) represent
her. Petitioner was not prepared in any way for trial. She did
not have any documentation or evidence of any kind and was not
represented by counsel.
Petitioner’s 2000, 2001, and 2002 Tax Years
Petitioner is not new to this Court. Petitioner’s 2000,
2001, and 2002 tax liabilities were redetermined by this Court in
the case of McCammon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-3 (McCammon
I). In this earlier case petitioner put forth the same
arguments, failed to comply with various orders before trial, and
failed to present evidence to support her arguments, as she has
in the case at hand.
In McCammon I petitioner’s Forms 1040 for 2000 and 2002
(petitioner did not file a Form 1040 for 2001) each showed a zero
tax liability and included a statement similar to the one
attached to her 2003 return (the year at issue herein), alleging
that petitioner was not liable for any tax. Petitioner also made
numerous requests for continuances. These requests were based
upon circumstances similar to those made in this case: (1)
Petitioner was not prepared; (2) petitioner’s prior accountant
was responsible for any and all errors; and (3) petitioner’s
- 6 -
current accountant was newly hired and not yet prepared to
represent her.
In McCammon I, petitioner was warned in a letter dated July
27, 2006, from the Court that it appeared that she was
instituting proceedings primarily for delay and that she had
unreasonably failed to pursue administrative remedies.
Petitioner was also warned that she was subjecting herself to the
possible imposition of penalties under section 6673 if she
continued to maintain meritless proceedings. In response,
petitioner filed a motion requesting a continuance.
Petitioner’s motion was denied, as there was no justification for
postponing a trial without any assurances from petitioner that
she would make an effort to cooperate in the determination of her
tax liabilities. Petitioner then filed a motion to recuse,
alleging that the Judge had “a personal bias and prejudice
against petitioner as a pro se litigant.” McCammon v.
Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner’s motion to recuse was denied and the case called
for trial. Petitioner requested yet another continuance. This
request was based upon petitioner’s claims that she was too busy
with her medical practice to collect documents and present them
to respondent, that petitioner’s accountant had quit over 8
months earlier, and that petitioner’s new accountant had been
hired only 2 weeks earlier.
- 7 -
At trial in McCammon I, petitioner was still unable to
identify any erroneous items included in respondent’s
determination or any allowable deductions. Petitioner, however,
was given one final opportunity posttrial to substantiate her
deductions. The Court issued an order finding petitioner in
default pursuant to Rule 123(a) because of her failure to comply
with previous Court orders and ordering her to show cause in
writing why the cases should not be dismissed by reason of her
failure to properly prosecute. The order to show cause required
petitioner to provide (1) proof that she delivered to respondent
any documents substantiating deductions, exemptions, or credits
to which she claimed entitlement, and (2) a report and
accompanying documentation relating to any other disputed issues.
Petitioner failed to comply with the Court order.
Although petitioner had failed to comply with the Court’s
order and the date for submitting documents to both respondent
and this Court had passed, respondent indicated a willingness to
give petitioner additional time to provide substantiation of any
items she would like to have considered. Again petitioner failed
to comply. Instead, petitioner responded with “a letter
containing a spurious attack on respondent’s counsel.” McCammon
v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner was warned of the consequences of her failure to
produce evidence in support of her case. In addition, she did
- 8 -
not comply with the orders of the Court and made no efforts to
contest respondent’s determinations on the merits. Thus, the
Court deemed the order to show cause absolute and dismissed
petitioner’s cases. The Court also warned petitioner not to
engage in similar dilatory conduct in any other case, stating:
“[I]nasmuch as petitioner has filed another petition in this
Court for 2003 (docket No. 10677-06), she is hereby warned that
the type of recalcitrance, obstruction, and procrastination
evident in these cases may result in an additional sanction of up
to $25,000.” McCammon v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner’s 2003 Tax Year
In the case presently before us, it is clear that petitioner
has not learned from her prior experiences before the Court.
Petitioner continues to put forth the same arguments she made
without success in McCammon I.
Although we denied petitioner’s request for a continuance,
we kept the record open to allow petitioner to make available to
respondent any documentation she intended to offer into the
record. Respondent, in a status report, notified the Court that
respondent had not had any contact from petitioner. She had not
presented any evidence or documentation to respondent relating to
the amounts at issue but instead argued that Federal law, as it
related to medical records, prevented her from submitting any
evidence.
- 9 -
OPINION
Generally, the Commissioner’s determinations in a notice of
deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the
burden of proving that the determinations are incorrect. Rule
142(a)(1); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Section
7491(a) places the burden of proof on the Commissioner if the
taxpayer introduces credible evidence with respect to any factual
issue relevant to ascertain her liability, has complied with
substantiation requirements, has maintained all records required,
and has cooperated with reasonable requests for witnesses,
information, documents, meetings, and interviews. Petitioner has
done none of these things, and the burden of proof remains on
her. The burden of proof is on the Commissioner, however, in
regard to any increases in deficiency. Rule 142(a); Hurst v.
Commissioner, 124 T.C. 16, 30 (2005). Consequently, the burden
of proof is on petitioner in regard to the interest, dividends,
and wages and is on respondent with regard to the S corporation
flow-through income and increase in the penalty under section
6662(a).
Wages, Interest, and Dividends
Taxable income includes gross income. Sec. 63(a). Gross
income includes compensation for services, interest, and
dividends. Sec. 61(a)(1), (4), (7).
- 10 -
The deficiencies assessed against petitioner were based upon
information provided by third parties, including a Form 1099-DIV,
Dividends and Distributions, and a Form W-2, Wage and Tax
Statement.
If a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to
any item of income reported on a third-party information return
and the taxpayer has fully cooperated with the Secretary, the
Secretary has the burden of producing reasonable and probative
information concerning that deficiency in addition to the
information return. Sec. 6201(d); Richardson v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2005-143. Petitioner did not produce any evidence,
either at trial or posttrial, showing that she did not receive
the wages, interest, or dividends at issue. Therefore, the
amounts that respondent determined petitioner received but failed
to report constitute taxable income.
S Corporation Flow-Through Income
Section 1366(a)(1) provides that in determining his income
tax liability an S corporation shareholder shall take into
account his pro rata share of the S corporation’s items of
income, loss, deduction, and credit for the S corporation’s
taxable year ending with or in the shareholder’s taxable year.
“The S corporation’s income is taxable to the shareholder
regardless of whether any income is distributed.” Dunne v.
- 11 -
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-63; Chen v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2006-160; Knott v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-352.
Respondent submitted certified copies of petitioner’s Form
1040 and petitioner’s S corporation’s Form 1120S, both signed by
petitioner. At trial petitioner admitted that Julie K. McCammon,
M.D., Inc., was her corporation. The Schedule K-1 filed with the
Form 1120S reported net income of $190,567, allocated in its
entirety to petitioner as the sole shareholder. Petitioner did
not produce any evidence either at trial or posttrial to refute
that the income of the corporation was includable on her Form
1040. Respondent has met the burden of proof as it relates to
petitioner’s flow-through income from her S corporation and it
shall be included in petitioner’s taxable income.
Section 6662 Penalty
Section 6662(a) and (b)(2) provides that taxpayers will be
liable for a penalty equal to 20 percent of the portion of the
underpayment of tax attributable to a substantial understatement
of income tax. Section 6662(d)(1)(A) provides that a substantial
understatement of income tax exists if the amount of the
understatement exceeds the greater of (1) 10 percent of the tax
required to be shown on the return or (2) $5,000. Section
6664(c)(1) provides that the accuracy-related penalty is not
imposed with respect to any portion of the understatement for
which the taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith.
- 12 -
Respondent asserted that petitioner is liable for an
accuracy-related penalty of $22,821.40 under section 6662. This
addition is a computational penalty directly related to the
amount of petitioner’s deficiency. Petitioner was required to
report a tax liability of $114,107 and underreported her tax
liability by $114,107. Therefore, respondent has satisfied his
burden of production under section 7491(c) because petitioner
understated her income tax by both $5,000 and more than 10
percent.
Respondent has carried his burden of production with regard
to the accuracy-related penalty determined in the notice of
deficiency. See Bhattacharyya v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-
19. In addition, respondent has carried his burden of proof with
respect to the increased deficiency, and therefore the increased
section 6662 penalty computed directly thereon, asserted in the
amendment to answer.
Petitioner has failed to produce sufficient evidence to
substantiate her deductions or other claims and has failed to
prove that she is entitled to a reduction of the understatement
under section 6664(c)(1) or section 6662(d)(2)(B)(i) or (ii).2
2
Under sec. 6662(d)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) the amount of a tax
understatement may be reduced by the portion thereof that is
attributable to (i) the tax treatment of an item for which there
was substantial authority; or (ii) any item if the relevant facts
affecting the item’s tax treatment are adequately disclosed in
the return or in a statement attached to the return and there is
(continued...)
- 13 -
Therefore we sustain respondent’s determinations under section
6662.
Additional Arguments
Petitioner, at various times since petitioning the Court,
has made two additional arguments: (1) That the Code is too
complex; and (2) that the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA), Pub. L. 104-191, sec. 501, 110 Stat.
2090, precluded her from presenting any evidence or records
relating to her medical practice.
Petitioner’s argument that the Code is too complex and
therefore cannot be relied upon to support the imposition of
Federal income tax fails. We have previously considered similar
arguments and found them to be without merit. See Halcott v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-214.
Petitioner argued that she could not provide any records
relating to the amounts at issue because to do so would violate
HIPAA. A taxpayer is required to maintain records sufficient to
enable the Commissioner to determine his or her correct tax
liability. Sec. 6001; Abdelhak v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-
158. Nothing in HIPAA alters this requirement. Petitioner was
required but failed to maintain records sufficient to determine
her tax liability. See Abdelhak v. Commissioner, supra.
2
(...continued)
a reasonable basis for the tax treatment of the item.
- 14 -
Section 6673 Penalty
Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Tax Court to impose a
penalty of up to $25,000, payable to the United States, when:
(1) A taxpayer institutes or maintains a proceeding primarily for
delay; (2) the taxpayer’s position in the proceeding is frivolous
or groundless; or (3) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue
available administrative remedies. Edwards v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-149, affd. 119 Fed. Appx. 293 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
We find that the present situation warrants the imposition
of such a penalty. Petitioner was warned in McCammon I not to
institute meritless proceedings but failed to heed that warning.
Petitioner remained undeterred from (1) delaying these
proceedings, (2) putting forth frivolous or groundless arguments,
and (3) refusing to provide any evidence in support of her
positions and statements. Petitioner was uncooperative and
unreasonable at every stage of these proceedings. See Edwards v.
Commissioner, supra. Accordingly, under the circumstances
presented, we shall impose a penalty of $25,000 on petitioner
under section 6673(a)(1).
To reflect the foregoing,
An appropriate order and
decision will be entered.