Mehner v. Comm'r
Opinion
*200 Petitioner's gross income included nonemployee compensation of $ 82,500 from Integrated Business Nonemployee Strategies, wages of $ 53,092 from ACI, Inc., and interest of $ 130 from various financial institutions. Petitioner was liable for self-employment tax of $ 3,735. Petitioner was not entitled to itemized deductions exceeding standard deduction allowed by respondent. Petitioner was not entitled to dependency exemptions exceeding those allowed by respondent. Petitioner was liable for additions to tax determined by respondent under
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
LARO, Judge: Petitioner petitioned the Court to redetermine respondent's determination of a $ 38,360 deficiency in petitioner's 1997 Federal income tax and additions thereto of $ 6,023, $ 5,622, and $ 1,363 under
(1) Whether petitioner's gross income includes nonemployee compensation of $ 82,500 from Integrated Business Nonemployee Strategies, *201 Inc., wages of $ 53,092 from ACI, Inc., and interest of $ 130 from various financial institutions (collectively, unreported amounts). We hold it does;
(2) whether petitioner is liable for self-employment tax of $ 3,735. We hold he is;
(3) whether petitioner is entitled to itemized deductions exceeding the standard deduction allowed by respondent. We hold he is not;
(4) whether petitioner is entitled to dependency exemptions exceeding those allowed by respondent. We hold he is not;
(5) whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax determined by respondent under
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some facts were stipulated. The parties' stipulation of facts and the exhibits submitted therewith are incorporated herein by this reference. We find the stipulated facts accordingly. Petitioner resided in Omaha, Nebraska, when his petition was filed.
Respondent's records contained no information on petitioner's having filed a 1997 Federal income tax return. Respondent prepared a substitute for return for that year. On November 30, 2001, respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency on the basis of*202 the substitute for return.
Petitioner received the following items of income during 1997:
Payor Amount Type
_____ ______ ____
Integrated Business $ 82,500 Nonemployee
Strategies, Inc. compensation
ACI, Inc. 53,092 Wages
First Deposit 19 Interest
National Bank
First Bank, N.A. 47 Interest
First Bank, N.A. 50 Interest
Capital One, F.S.B. 14 Interest
OPINION
Petitioner asserts that he timely filed his 1997 Federal income tax return, but that it was either lost by the Internal Revenue Service or misplaced by the U.S. Postal Service. On the basis of this assertion, petitioner concludes that respondent erred in the notice of deficiency in that he determined petitioner's*203 tax liability for 1997 "in lieu of the timely filed original tax return" and did not give petitioner "full credit for any allowable deductions under Schedule C." Petitioner did not present at trial a copy of his 1997 income tax return that he purportedly mailed to respondent, a proof of its mailing, or evidence as to his entitlement to any deductions not allowed by respondent in the notice of deficiency.
The parties agree that the burden of proof as to the deficiency is on petitioner. Respondent bears the burden of production as to the additions to tax. See
The definition of gross income under
*205 In that petitioner received his nonemployee compensation from Integrated Business Strategies, Inc., in his capacity as a nonemployee, we sustain respondent's determination that petitioner is liable for self-employment tax on those earnings.
Taxpayers are required to keep sufficient records to enable the Commissioner to determine their correct tax liability.
1.
*206 Respondent met his burden of production in that respondent introduced (and the Court admitted) into evidence a Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments, Payments and Other Specified Matters, and the testimony of the revenue agent who audited petitioner, both to the effect that respondent's records do not indicate that respondent has ever received a Federal income tax return from petitioner for the subject year. Petitioner, in turn, has failed to meet his burden of proof. Petitioner has never presented any credible evidence indicating that he filed a 1997 tax return, nor has he established that his failure to file the return was on account of cause that is reasonable. We hold that petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under
2.
The record establishes*207 that petitioner failed to pay the required amount of estimated tax for 1997. We conclude that respondent has met his burden of production as to this issue. Given that the record does not establish that any of the referenced exceptions applies, we conclude that petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof and sustain respondent's determination as to this issue. See
We have considered all arguments and have found those arguments not discussed herein to be irrelevant and/or without merit. To reflect respondent's concessions,
Decision will be entered under
Footnotes
1. Section references are to the applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code, Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, and dollar amounts are rounded.↩
2. Respondent conceded that: (1) Petitioner is not liable for the addition to tax of $ 5,022 under
sec. 6651(a)(2) ; and(2) ↩ petitioner is entitled to additional dependency exemptions for his wife and two children.3. The minimum amount exception under
sec. 6012(a)(1)(A)(i)↩ does not apply to petitioner, as petitioner's income exceeded the minimum amount.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.