London v. Commissioner
Opinion
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PANUTHOS,
Respondent filed a motion for partial summary judgment in which she asserts that petitioner is not entitled to use income averaging for the taxable years 1980 and 1981. Petitioner filed an objection to respondent's motion and also filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Petitioner argues that he is entitled to income averaging for the taxable years 1980 and 1981. Respondent filed a notice of objection to petitioner's cross-motion for partial summary judgment.
Respondent issued a notice of deficiency on April 5, 1990, determining deficiencies in and additions*207 to petitioner's Federal income taxes for the taxable years 1980 through 1982 as follows:
| Additions to Tax | ||||
| Year | Deficiency | Sec. 6653(a) | Sec. 6653(a)(1) | Sec. 6661 |
| 1980 | $ 76,748.00 | $ 3,837 | --- | --- |
| 1981 | 125,013.15 | --- | $ 6,250.65 | --- |
| 1982 | 47,634.00 | --- | 2,381.70 | $ 11,908.50 |
The notice of deficiency determined a number of adjustments related to Merit Securities issues. See
The notice of deficiency also determined that petitioner was not entitled to income averaging for the taxable years 1981 and 1982 because he was unable to substantiate the base period years. 2 An amendment to petition was filed wherein petitioner claimed entitlement to income averaging for the taxable years *208 1980 and 1981. 3
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.
Given that the parties have filed cross-motions for partial summary*209 judgment, it is apparent that each of them believes that the issue before us is ripe for summary adjudication and that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.
The following is a summary of the relevant facts that do not appear to be in dispute. They are stated solely for purposes of deciding the pending motions and are not findings of fact for this case.
Petitioner computed his income tax liability for the taxable years 1978 and 1979 utilizing income averaging. The 4 base years for 1978 were 1974 through 1977, and the 4 base years for 1979 were 1975 through 1978. The 1978 and 1979 Federal income tax returns were examined by respondent. On the income averaging schedules (Schedules G) attached to the 1978 and 1979 returns, petitioner reflected zero taxable income for 1976 and 1977. Schedules G also reflected base period income for 1976 and 1977 as $ 2,200 4 and zero, respectively.
*210 A notice of deficiency was issued to petitioner for the taxable years 1978 and 1979. The adjustments in the notice of deficiency increased his distributive share of income from two partnerships. The notice of deficiency did not disallow the use of income averaging. When the 1978 and 1979 tax years were resolved 5 between the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service Appeals Office, the computation of the deficiencies for those years permitted the use of income averaging based on the amounts of taxable income for the base years reflected by petitioner.
The 1976 and 1977 Federal income tax returns are not available. Petitioner is unable to locate copies of those returns, and respondent asserts that the original 1976 and 1977 returns have been destroyed. In an affidavit, petitioner asserts that the amounts reflected for 1976 and 1977 on the Schedules G attached to the 1978 and 1979 returns*211 were correct. Accordingly, petitioner asserts that taxable income was correctly reported on the 1976 and 1977 Federal income tax returns. Transcripts of account reflect the filing of the 1976 and 1977 Federal income tax returns and further reflect amounts of adjusted gross income. 6
Petitioner further asserts that there were no investments in partnerships and corresponding claims for distributive share of losses in 1976 and 1977, which items were the subject of adjustments for the years 1978 through 1982. Respondent does not have any information or evidence that the amounts reflected as taxable income for 1976 and 1977 on the income averaging schedules of the 1978 and 1979 returns are not correct.
As applicable for the years in issue,
*213 The only years of base period income put in question by the pending motions are 1976 and 1977. Since the 1976 and 1977 tax returns, or copies thereof, are not available, petitioner has presented other circumstantial evidence through documents and an affidavit to establish correct taxable income. Respondent has not set forth any specific facts or presented any evidence nor has she disputed the assertions made by petitioner. Based on this record, we find that petitioner has established correct taxable income for 1976 and 1977. Having established that, there is no impediment to petitioner's obtaining the benefits of income averaging for the taxable years 1980 and 1981.
Petitioner argues that there is ample case law that stands for the proposition that, when a taxpayer presents respondent with evidence of correct taxable income for a base year, respondent must do more than simply argue that the tax year has not been examined.
Respondent has not asserted that the information provided by petitioner is incorrect. Compare
There is no evidence in this*215 case that the taxable income for 1976 and 1977 is not accurate as claimed by petitioner. Compare
We hold that petitioner is entitled to income averaging for the taxable years 1980 and 1981 utilizing the base year income reflected in this record.
The parties have presented substantial argument with respect to the effect of a prior motion*216 filed by respondent wherein, for purposes of the motion, respondent computed petitioner's 1980 and 1981 tax liabilities allowing income averaging. The Court subsequently permitted respondent to withdraw that motion. We do not deem the filing or withdrawal of said motion to be relevant or a discussion thereof necessary for our holding herein.
An appropriate order will be issued denying respondent's motion for partial summary judgment and granting petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment.
To reflect the foregoing,
Footnotes
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, unless otherwise indicated. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. No taxable income was reported on the 1980 return; thus, income averaging was not utilized.↩
3. The respective motions filed by the parties do not discuss the issue of income averaging for the taxable year 1982; accordingly, the Court assumes that the parties have resolved that question.↩
4. The Schedule G attached to the 1978 return required a taxpayer to add to taxable income for 1976 the exemption amount ($ 2,200) in order to arrive at base period income.↩
5. The matter was settled administratively; thus, no petition was filed in response to the 1978 and 1979 notices of deficiency.↩
6. The transcript reflects the amounts of $ 863 and $ 1,304 for 1976 and 1977. While not clear from this document, the parties have explained these amounts to represent adjusted gross income.↩
7. The base years for 1980 are 1976 through 1979. The base years for 1981 are 1977 through 1980. Respondent does not question the base years 1978 and 1979. Petitioner's income for 1980 is a matter in issue in this proceeding because 1980 was one of the years for which a deficiency was asserted by respondent. Thus, the fact that petitioner's income for that year has yet to be adjudicated is not an obstacle to his claim for income averaging. See
.Ryza v. Commissioner , T.C. Memo. 1977-64↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.