Hall v. Comm'r

T.C. Summary Opinion 2012-48

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

ANDREA MARIE HALL, a.k.a. ANDREA MARIE DARABASZ, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 7699-10S. Filed May 22, 2012.

Andrea Marie Hall, a.k.a. Andrea Marie Darabasz, pro se.

Bradley C. Plovan and Arlene A. Blume, for respondent.

SUMMARY OPINION

DEAN, 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 shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.

Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal
 -2-

Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue, and Rule references are to the Tax

Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Respondent determined for 2008 a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income

tax of $12,943 and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $2,588.60.

Petitioner concedes that she failed to report as income $5,280 received from

Phoenix Realty & Associates and $18 received from “Police and Fire FCU” in

2008. Petitioner concedes that she had unreported “other income” determined by

respondent’s bank deposits analysis as reduced by respondent’s concession of

nontaxable deposits from Richmond American Homes and Traveler’s Joy and

wedding gifts of $2,530 received and deposited in 2008. Petitioner also concedes

that she is not entitled to a deduction on Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss

(From rental real estate, royalties, partnerships, S corporations, estates, trusts,

REMICs, etc.), of $1,000 as an advertising expense.

Although petitioner filed her return as a single, unmarried individual, she and

respondent agree that she was married during and at the close of 2008. Respondent

concedes that petitioner is entitled to deduct on Schedule E an expense for mortgage

interest of $14,147.16. Respondent concedes that petitioner is
 -3-

entitled to deduct $4,239 in real estate taxes paid to Anne Arundel County,

Maryland.

The issues remaining for decision are: (a) whether petitioner is entitled to

deduct home mortgage interest in excess of that allowed or agreed to by respondent;

(b) whether petitioner is entitled to deduct Schedule E expenses in excess of those

allowed or agreed to by respondent; and (c) whether petitioner is liable for the

accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of

facts and the exhibits received in evidence are incorporated herein by reference.

Petitioner resided in Maryland when the petition was filed.

Background

Petitioner worked as a medical assistant during 2008. Petitioner married her

husband, Daniel Hall, in May 2008, and they remained married at the time of trial.

Petitioner purchased her principal residence in February 2008. Petitioner

deducted on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, attached to her Federal income tax

return for 2008, home mortgage interest of $36,432. Respondent received from

seven financial institutions Forms 1098, Mortgage Interest Statement, reporting

interest of $39,966 paid “in petitioner’s name”. One of the Forms 1098 was from

Chase Home Finance/Amtrust Bank. Petitioner substantiated that she personally
 -4-

made eight payments during the year on the mortgage. Another Form 1098 was

received from Taylor, Bean & Whitiker Mortgage Corp. Respondent allowed with

respect to the latter Form 1098 a mortgage interest deduction for “each verified

monthly payment equal to one-twelfth of the total interest paid during the year”.

Petitioner’s husband claimed no itemized deductions and did not report any

Schedule E activity on his Federal income tax return for 2008.

Petitioner owned an interest in real estate other than her home in 2008

(property). The property was the subject of a failed installment land sale or “rent-

to-own” agreement and a subsequent lease agreement in 2008. In addition to the

real estate taxes respondent already conceded, petitioner paid $264.46 for water and

waste water service at the property.

Discussion

Generally, the Commissioner’s determinations are presumed correct, and the

taxpayer bears the burden of proving that those determinations are erroneous. Rule

142(a); see INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v.

Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). In some cases the burden of proof with

respect to relevant factual issues may shift to the Commissioner under section

7491(a). Petitioner did not argue or present evidence that she satisfied the
 -5-

requirements of section 7491(a). Therefore, petitioner bears the burden of proof

with respect to the issues in the notice of deficiency.

Mortgage Payments

Respondent argues not that the home mortgage amounts were not paid on

petitioner’s mortgages, but rather that she has not shown evidence that she

personally made each and every payment. Respondent asserts in his pretrial

memorandum that he “separately verified” that petitioner made certain payments

and as a result determined in the notice of deficiency that she was entitled to a home

mortgage interest deduction of $9,423. The parties agree that petitioner has verified

that she made home mortgage payments in addition to those respondent separately

verified.

Respondent’s counsel’s position at trial was that the payments shown by

petitioner “do not fully account for the mortgage interest reported on the 1098.”

Petitioner insisted that she made all the payments on her home mortgage but could

not find all the evidence that would prove it. Where a taxpayer is unable to prove

the exact amount of the otherwise deductible item, the Court may estimate the

amount of such an expense and allow the deduction to that extent. Millikin v.

Commissioner, 298 F.2d 830, 834-835 (4th Cir. 1962), aff’g T.C. Memo. 1959-210;
 -6-

Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930); Estate of Dickerson

v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-165.

The Court finds that petitioner’s testimony along with the reasonable

inferences to be drawn from the facts and circumstances support her

deduction of home mortgage interest as reported on her Forms 1098.

Schedule E Deductions

The parties stipulated several documents, Exhibits 17-P through 24-P, related

to Schedule E deductions petitioner sought, to which respondent reserved various

objections.

Payments to Anne Arundel County

Exhibit 17-P is a stamped paid bill for $264.46 from Anne Arundel County

for water and waste water service. Respondent reserved an objection to the

document because it was evidence of a deduction not shown on the return or raised

in the pleadings. Respondent’s counsel in announcing certain concessions stated

that as to the exhibit, “there is no issue as to the evidence”. The Court treats

respondent’s statement as a waiver of his objection and finds that petitioner is

entitled to the deduction.

Exhibit 18-P is a real estate tax bill of $4,239.53 paid to Anne Arundel

County. Respondent objected to the document because it was evidence of a
 -7-

deduction not shown on the return or raised in the pleadings. As respondent has

conceded this item as a deduction related to the property, the Court will treat

respondent as having waived his objection to the document. To the extent that

respondent did not intend to waive his objection, it is overruled. See Rule 174(b).

“Bad Debt” Deduction

Petitioner testified at trial that she suffered a bad debt loss on the property

and that she should be allowed to deduct the bad debt on her Schedule E for 2008.

She testified that she started renting the property in February of 2008, the renters

“suddenly left the property without notice,” yet she had to continue to make

mortgage payments of $24,846. Petitioner presented Exhibits 19, 20, and 21-P to

support her argument. Petitioner admits that the $24,846 “bad debt” includes the

$14,200 of interest on the mortgage that she deducted and that respondent has

agreed to. Certainly that portion of the proposed deduction is not allowable.

Double deductions are not allowed absent the clear intent of Congress. United

States v. Skelly Oil Co., 394 U.S. 678, 684 (1969); Charles Ilfeld Co. v. Hernandez,

292 U.S. 62, 68 (1934); Lang v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-286. The

balance of the mortgage payment, absent evidence to the contrary, would be for the

acquisition of the property itself, a capital asset. Sec. 1221. Generally, no

deduction is allowed for capital expenditures. Sec. 263(a). In any event, debts
 -8-

arising from unpaid rents are not allowable as a bad debt deduction unless the rental

income has been included on the return for the year or a prior taxable year. Sec.

1.166-1(e), Income Tax Regs. Petitioner has not shown that she included any

uncollected rent for the property in income for any year.

Whether or not the Court admits petitioner’s documents, her legal position is

untenable. She is not entitled to a bad debt deduction of $24,846 on Schedule E for

2008.

Mortgage Expenses

Respondent conceded that petitioner is entitled to deduct the Schedule E

mortgage expenses evidenced by Exhibits 22, 23, and 24-P, and the Court treats his

reserved objections to the exhibits as waived.

Accuracy-Related Penalty

Section 7491(c) imposes on the Commissioner the burden of production in

any court proceeding with respect to the liability of any individual for penalties and

additions to tax. Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001); Trowbridge

v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-164, aff’d, 378 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2004). In

order to meet the burden of production under section 7491(c), the Commissioner

need only make a prima facie case that imposition of the penalty or the addition to

tax is appropriate. Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. at 446. Petitioner, although
 -9-

married, filed as a single person and failed to report specific items of income as well

as income determined using an indirect method.

The Court concludes that respondent has produced sufficient evidence to

show that the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(b)(1)1 is appropriate for

2008.

Section 6662(a) and (b)(1) and (2) imposes a 20% penalty on the portion of

an underpayment of tax attributable to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations

and a substantial understatement of income tax. “Negligence” includes any failure

to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue

Code, including any failure to keep adequate books and records or to substantiate

items properly. See sec. 6662(c); sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.

Section 6664(c)(1) provides that the penalty under section 6662(a) shall not

apply to any portion of an underpayment if it is shown that there was reasonable

cause for the taxpayer’s position and that the taxpayer acted in good faith with

respect to that portion. The determination of whether a taxpayer acted with

reasonable cause and in good faith is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into

1
Because the Court finds that petitioner was negligent, the other bases for the
application of the penalty will not be discussed. See sec. 1.6662-2(c), Income Tax
Regs.
 - 10 -

account all the pertinent facts and circumstances. Sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax

Regs.

Section 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs., specifically provides:

“Circumstances that may indicate reasonable cause and good faith include an honest

misunderstanding of fact or law that is reasonable in light of all the facts and

circumstances, including the experience, knowledge, and education of the taxpayer.”

The most important factor is the extent of the taxpayer’s effort to assess his proper

tax liability for the year. Id.

Petitioner offered no argument or evidence to show that there was reasonable

cause for and that she acted in good faith with respect to the underpayment.

Respondent’s determination of the accuracy-related penalty under section

6662(a) for 2008 is sustained.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered

under Rule 155.