Muhammad v. Comm'r
Opinion
*46 PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.
RUWE, Judge: This case was heard pursuant to section 7463 1 in effect when the petition was filed. The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority.
Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 6,489 in petitioner's 2003 Federal income tax and an accuracy-related penalty of $ 1,297.80 under
Some facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated by this reference. At the time of filing the petition, petitioner resided in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Petitioner's tax return for 2003 was prepared by Chester Muhammad. On his return, petitioner reported an adjusted gross income of $ 34,775. Petitioner deducted charitable contributions totaling $ 8,500 in 2003.
Petitioner had a checking account during 2003. However, petitioner made no contributions by check and presented no canceled checks or receipts to establish his alleged contributions. Petitioner offered two documents*48 to substantiate the purported contributions at trial. One is an undated and unsigned list of contributions totaling $ 8,500 written on what appears to be Muhammad Mosque No. 12 letterhead. The other is a faxed letter and a copy of the same list of contributions. The letter was purportedly sent from the former secretary of the Muhammad Mosque No. 12, Laverne Muhammad, on May 19, 2006, a few weeks before trial. May 19, 2006, was the same date respondent received the list for the first time. The contributions shown on these documents are as follows:
SAVIOURS' DAY (FEB) $ 2,500.00
NO.2 POOR CHARITY $ 2,000.00
OBLIGATORY CHARITY $ 1,800.00
MOSQUE NO 12 BLDG FUND $ 1,195.00
LOCAL MINISTER CHARITY $ 705.00
LOCAL CHARITY $ 195.00
3 YEAR ECONOMIC PLAN $ 105.00
_________
$ 8,500.00
These documents show neither the dates nor the amounts of the individual contributions.
Discussion
As a general rule, the Commissioner's determinations*49 set forth in a notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that these determinations are in error.
1. Charitable Deductions
Deductions are strictly a matter of legislative grace and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving entitlement to the claimed deduction.
Any charitable*51 contribution of more than $ 250 must further be substantiated by "a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the contribution by the donee organization".
Petitioner testified that because he had made all of his contributions in cash to Muhammad Mosque No. 12, there were no canceled checks. Petitioner offered no evidence of the specific dates and amounts of the contributions. Petitioner claimed that he had been given receipts for each contribution made; however, he failed to keep them because he knew he would receive a statement at the end of the year. As previously discussed, the only documentation that petitioner offered to substantiate his charitable contributions was an undated list and a recently faxed copy thereof from the Muhammad Mosque No. 12. Most of the amounts shown on the documents that petitioner submitted exceed $ 250. Petitioner testified that the amounts shown on the documents*52 are totals and that his contributions were made at various times and in various amounts during the year, but there is nothing in the record regarding the amounts or dates of the individual contributions that comprise those amounts.
We find that petitioner failed to provide reliable evidence of his purported contributions and failed to meet his burden of proof. We hold that respondent's determinations disallowing petitioner's claimed charitable contribution deductions are sustained.
2.
With respect to the accuracy-related penalty under
An accuracy-related penalty is not imposed with respect to any portion of the underpayment as to which the taxpayer acted with reasonable cause and in good faith.
Petitioner has failed to keep or produce*54 adequate records. Respondent has provided sufficient evidence to meet his burden of production. Petitioner has not produced evidence to prove that respondent's determination of negligence is incorrect. We hold that petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty under
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
Footnotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. The parties have agreed that the amount disallowed for Schedule C expenses is $ 5,280, comprising $ 2,880 for car and truck expenses, $ 1,600 for depreciation, and $ 800 for other expenses. Petitioner also conceded that he is not entitled to an education credit and that his filing status is single for 2003.↩
3. A receipt is required to contain the name of the donee, the date of the contribution, and the amount of the contribution.
Sec. 1.170A-13(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.↩
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.