Jund v. Commissioner

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

MURDOCK, Judge: The Commissioner determined deficiencies of $520.13 for 1957 and $616.13 for 1958, and additions of $26.01 for 1957 and $30.81 for 1958 under section 6653(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, for negligence. The issues for decision are whether the Commissioner erred in disallowing itemized deductions for lack of substantiation and substituting the standard deduction for each year, and in disallowing dependency exemptions for each year.

Findings of Fact

Walter was unmarried in 1957 but he and a person described therein as Margaret Jund filed a return*266 for 1957 with the director of internal revenue at Brooklyn, New York. The Commissioner in determining the deficiency for 1957 disallowed exemptions of $3,000 claimed on that return and gave the following explanation in the notice of deficiency:

Four exemptions claimed for Margaret Harrington and her three children are disallowed as you were not married to Margaret Harrington and you have not established that the three children bore such relationship to you as to qualify as your dependents (section 152(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954).

Because the Tax Table makes allowance for your exemption, the exemption claimed for yourself is disallowed in computing Adjusted Gross Income.

The five exemptions were properly disallowed for the reasons stated. Walter was not married to Margaret during 1957 and has not proved any facts to show relationship to the three children.

Walter was married to Helen during 1958 and furnished more than one-half of the support of her mother during that year. The mother was then 85 years of age, unable to work and had no property or income of her own. She lived in Walter's home and was supported solely by him.

Walter claimed*267 the following itemized deductions for 1957:

The Commissioner, in determining the deficiency, disallowed the deduction of $521 and allowed instead the standard deduction of 10 percent of gross income. The record does not show that the petitioner is entitled to any greater deduction for 1957 than has been allowed by the Commissioner.

Walter and Helen claimed the following deductions on their return for 1958:

*268 The Commissioner, in determining the deficiency for 1958, disallowed the claimed deduction of $3,071.15 for lack of substantiation and in lieu thereof allowed the standard deduction, 10 percent of adjusted gross income, in the amount of $704.90.

Some of the reductions were allegedly those of Helen.

The record does not justify a larger deduction than that allowed by the Commissioner.

Opinion

Walter was the only witness. His testimony adds little, if anything, to corroborate or substantiate any of the deductions listed and claimed on his returns in the total amount of $521 for 1957 and $3,071.15 ¹ for 1958. He could not remember so far back and did not exhibit any documents which would establish any total shown on his returns. The Court and counsel for the respondent both tried in vain to help him. The record establishes that Walter was not entitled to the five exemptions claimed for 1957 and does not justify any increase in the deduction allowed by the Commissioner for that year. The Commissioner allowed a deduction of $704.90 for 1958 and there would be no justification to increase that amount based upon the weak evidence in this record.

*269 Decisions will be entered under Rule 50.²