T.C. Memo. 2011-300
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ALPHA DIALLO, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 21796-09. Filed December 29, 2011.
Alpha Diallo, pro se.
R. Jeffrey Knight, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
THORNTON, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in
petitioner’s 2005, 2006, and 2007 Federal income taxes of
$16,069, $16,602, and $7,247, respectively. Respondent further
determined penalties pursuant to section 6662(a) of $3,214,
- 2 -
$3,320, and $1,449 for tax years 2005, 2006, and 2007,
respectively.1
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner
underreported gross receipts from his limousine driving business
as respondent has determined; (2) whether respondent properly
disallowed certain deductions with respect to this business; (3)
whether petitioner is entitled to dependency exemption deductions
for one dependent in tax years 2005 and 2006 and two dependents
in tax year 2007; (4) whether petitioner is entitled to head of
household filing status; and (5) whether petitioner is liable for
accuracy-related penalties pursuant to section 6662(a).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties have stipulated some facts, which we incorporate
by this reference. When he petitioned the Court, petitioner
resided in Maryland.
During the years at issue petitioner was self-employed as a
limousine driver. He owned no vehicle other than the one he used
in his business. Sometimes he used this vehicle for personal
purposes.
During the years at issue petitioner’s sister-in-law and his
niece, R.D., who was born in 2004, resided with him at his
1
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for
the years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court
Rules of Practice and Procedure. All dollar amounts have been
rounded to the nearest dollar.
- 3 -
residence.2 In 2006 another niece, S.D., was born, and she also
resided with petitioner at his residence. Petitioner’s brother,
who is the father of R.D. and S.D., lived in Africa. To assist
with the care of his children, petitioner’s brother provided
petitioner financial support and helped buy petitioner’s house.
On his Federal income tax returns for 2005, 2006, and 2007,
petitioner claimed head of household filing status. For 2005 and
2006, he claimed R.D. as his dependent. For 2007 he claimed both
R.D. and S.D. as dependents. On Schedules C, Profit or Loss From
Business, petitioner reported gross receipts from his limousine
driving business of $18,027, $21,271, and $35,611 for 2005, 2006,
and 2007, respectively. He claimed total Schedule C business
expenses of $9,975, $12,481, and $22,944 for 2005, 2006, and
2007, respectively.
In the notice of deficiency respondent determined that
petitioner’s proper filing status was single and that he was
entitled to no dependency exemption deductions. Using the bank
deposits method, respondent determined that petitioner had
underreported his Schedule C gross receipts by $41,333 for 2005
and by $39,981 for 2006. Respondent also disallowed, for lack of
substantiation, some of petitioner’s Schedule C expenses; the
2
The Court refers to minors by their initials. See Rule
27(a)(3).
- 4 -
disallowed deductions totaled $4,269, $6,491, and $16,655 for
2005, 2006, and 2007, respectively.
OPINION
I. Schedule C Gross Receipts
If a taxpayer fails to keep adequate records, the
Commissioner may reconstruct the taxpayer’s income by any
reasonable method that clearly reflects income. Sec. 446(b); see
Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 130-132 (1954).
One acceptable method is the bank deposits method. Clayton v.
Commissioner, 102 T.C. 632, 645 (1994); DiLeo v. Commissioner, 96
T.C. 858, 867 (1991), affd. 959 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1992); Bevan v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1971-312, affd. 472 F.2d 1381 (6th Cir.
1973). This method assumes that if a taxpayer is engaged in an
income-producing activity and makes deposits to bank accounts,
then those deposits, less amounts identified as nonincome items,
constitute taxable income. See Clayton v. Commissioner, supra at
645-646.
Respondent reconstructed petitioner’s gross income for 2005
and 2006 using the bank deposits method. Respondent’s analysis
showed aggregate deposits into petitioner’s accounts of $59,360
for 2005 and $61,252 for 2006, all of which respondent has
included in petitioner’s gross income. Petitioner bears the
burden of showing that these determinations are incorrect. Rule
- 5 -
142(a); see DiLeo v. Commissioner, supra at 871; Bevan v.
Commissioner, supra.3
Petitioner does not dispute making these deposits. He
contends, however, that they include certain nontaxable amounts;
namely a $25,000 cash hoard that he allegedly brought with him
when he moved to the United States in 1994, as well as other
indeterminate sums that he claims to have accumulated from his
employment as a limousine driver from 1994 until 2004.
Petitioner alleges that before 2005 he kept all these moneys in
his house instead of a bank because he feared that if the bank
went broke he would lose everything. But he also testified that
in 1999 he learned of Federal deposit insurance, which guarantees
the security of deposits in member banks. In the light of this
testimony, it is difficult to understand why he would have made
these deposits in 2005 and 2006, and not before.
Moreover, petitioner’s self-created profit and loss
statements, which are in evidence, strongly discredit his
testimony and in fact tend to support respondent’s determinations
as to his gross receipts for 2005 and 2006.4 Taking into account
3
Petitioner does not contend and the record does not suggest
that the burden of proof should shift to respondent pursuant to
sec. 7491(a).
4
Petitioner’s self-created profit and loss statements show
gross receipts of $55,746 for 2005 and $56,338 for 2006.
- 6 -
a number of inconsistencies in petitioner’s testimony, we do not
find it credible or plausible.
Petitioner has failed to establish that any of the
unexplained amounts deposited in his accounts represent
nontaxable items. Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s
determinations as to this issue.
II. Schedule C Deductions
Section 162(a) allows a deduction for ordinary and necessary
expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on
a trade or business. Taxpayers must maintain records sufficient
to establish the amount of their income and deductions. Sec.
6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), (e), Income Tax Regs. In general, no
deduction is permitted for personal, family, or living expenses.
Sec. 262. If a taxpayer establishes a deductible expense but is
unable to substantiate the precise amount, the Court may
approximate the deductible amount, but only if the taxpayer
presents sufficient evidence to establish a rational basis for
making the estimate. Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544
(2d Cir. 1930).
The record provides no credible evidentiary basis to support
petitioner’s claimed deductions beyond the amounts that
respondent has allowed. Although petitioner introduced into
evidence copies of numerous receipts, they cannot be readily
correlated with the deductions he has claimed. The receipts
- 7 -
include expenditures for many personal items, such as games,
bedding, and food. Similarly, although petitioner presented
evidence of about $1,500 in fuel expenditures, they appear to
cover both personal and business use of his automobile.5
Petitioner has failed to prove that he is entitled to Schedule C
deductions greater than those respondent has permitted.
We sustain respondent’s determinations with respect to
petitioner’s Schedule C deductions.
III. Dependency Exemption Deduction
A taxpayer may claim a dependency exemption deduction with
respect to an individual who is either a “qualifying child” or a
5
Petitioner’s testimony in this regard, as in other regards,
was inconsistent and unreliable. He first testified that he
could not recall how many miles he drove for personal purposes.
Then he testified that he did not use the automobile for personal
purposes except to “stop for groceries”. Petitioner stated that
when he needed a car for personal reasons, he would rent a car.
This testimony is rendered less credible by petitioner’s
subsequent admission that he drove his automobile to the trial.
Ultimately, petitioner testified that he used his automobile 90
to 95 percent for business purposes but acknowledged he had no
documentation to support this allocation.
In the event, as seems likely, that “substantially all” of
petitioner’s use of the limousine was not “in a trade or business
of providing to unrelated persons services consisting of the
transportation of persons or property for compensation or hire”,
see sec. 280F(d)(4)(C), petitioner would be subject to the strict
substantiation requirements of sec. 274(d). Petitioner, however,
has failed to show he meets the substantiation requirements of
sec. 1.6001-1(a) and (e), Income Tax Regs., or to provide any
basis for us to approximate a deduction under Cohan v.
Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930). Perforce he
does not satisfy the stricter substantiation requirements of sec.
274(d).
- 8 -
“qualifying relative”. Secs. 151(c), 152(a). To be a taxpayer’s
“qualifying child”, an individual must: (1) Bear a qualifying
relationship to the taxpayer; (2) have the same principal place
of abode as the taxpayer for more than one-half of the taxable
year; (3) meet certain age requirements; and (4) have not
provided over one-half of his or her own support for the year.
Sec. 152(c)(1).
There is no dispute that petitioner’s nieces, born in 2004
and 2006, each satisfy the relationship requirement and the age
requirement to be a “qualifying child”. See sec.
152(c)(2)(B), (3)(A)(i). We are satisfied that the nieces meet
the principal place of abode requirement because R.D. resided
with petitioner at his residence during 2005, 2006, and 2007, and
S.D. resided with petitioner at his residence following her birth
in 2006. It appears self-evident that R.D. and S.D., one a
toddler and the other an infant, did not provide more than one-
half of their own support during any year at issue.
Consequently, petitioner is entitled to dependency exemption
deductions for his two nieces.
IV. Head of Household Filing Status
Section 1(b) grants a special tax rate for any individual
who qualifies as a head of household. With exceptions not
relevant here, the statute generally defines a head of household
as an unmarried individual who maintains as his or her home a
- 9 -
household which constitutes for more than one-half of the taxable
year the principal place of abode of either a qualifying child
(as defined in section 152(c)) or a dependent of the taxpayer
with respect to whom the taxpayer is allowed a deduction under
section 151. Sec. 2(b)(1)(A). For this purpose, an individual
is considered to maintain a household only if he or she furnishes
over one-half of the cost of maintaining the household during the
taxable year. Sec. 2(b)(1).
In order for the Court to determine whether the taxpayer
provided over one-half of the cost of maintaining the household,
the taxpayer must prove the total cost of maintaining the
household. See Rosen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-40.
Costs of maintaining a household include “property taxes,
mortgage interest, rent, utility charges, upkeep and repairs,
property insurance, and food consumed on the premises.” Sec.
1.2-2(d), Income Tax Regs.
The record is inconclusive as to whether petitioner was
unmarried during the years at issue. But even if he were
unmarried, he is not entitled to head of household status because
he has not established that he provided over one-half of the cost
of maintaining the household. Petitioner provided inadequate
records to establish the total cost of maintaining the household
or his own contribution to the total cost. In a document in
evidence dated May 14, 2008, and captioned “Attestation”,
- 10 -
petitioner’s brother attested that he worked for an international
bank in the Republic of Guinea, that he provided financial help
to petitioner whenever it was necessary, that he assisted him in
paying bills and in buying his house, and that his wife and
children stayed with petitioner at the brother’s own expense.
The record is otherwise silent as to the amount of the brother’s
contributions. Petitioner has failed to show that he provided
over one-half of the cost of maintaining the household. We
sustain respondent’s determination as to this issue.
V. Section 6662(a) Penalty
Respondent determined that for each year at issue petitioner
is liable for an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section
6662(a) and (b)(1) and (2) for negligence or substantial
understatement of income tax. Respondent bears the burden of
production with respect to this penalty. See sec. 7491(c). To
meet this burden, respondent must produce evidence establishing
that it is appropriate to impose this penalty. Once respondent
has done so, the burden of proof is on petitioner to show that
the penalty does not apply. See Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C.
438, 449 (2001).
Negligence includes any failure to make a reasonable attempt
to comply with the provisions of the internal revenue laws and is
the failure to exercise due care or the failure to do what a
reasonable and prudent person would do under the circumstances.
- 11 -
Sec. 6662(c); Neely v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947 (1985);
sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. Negligence also includes
any failure by the taxpayer to keep adequate books and records or
substantiate items properly. Sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax
Regs. Petitioner exhibited a lack of due care in failing to
report gross receipts, to keep adequate books and records, and to
properly substantiate claimed deductions. Respondent has carried
his burden of production with respect to the section 6662(a)
penalties for negligence.
Section 6662(a) and (b)(2) imposes a 20-percent
accuracy-related penalty on any portion of a tax underpayment
that is attributable to any substantial understatement of income
tax, defined in section 6662(d)(1)(A) as an understatement that
exceeds the greater of 10 percent of the tax required to be shown
on the return or $5,000. The exact amounts of petitioner’s
underpayments will depend upon the Rule 155 computations, in
accordance with our findings and conclusions. To the extent that
those computations establish, as seems likely, that petitioner
has substantial understatements of income tax, respondent has
also met his burden of production in this regard. See Prince v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-247.
The accuracy-related penalty does not apply with respect to
any portion of the underpayment for which it is shown that the
taxpayer had reasonable cause and acted in good faith. Sec.
- 12 -
6664(c)(1). Petitioner has made no attempt to explain his
failure to report gross receipts, to keep adequate books and
records, and to substantiate items properly. We hold that for
each year at issue petitioner is liable for a section 6662(a)
penalty for negligence and, alternatively, for substantial
understatements of income tax insofar as the Rule 155
computations show substantial understatements.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.