Andre Jackson

United States Tax Court

T.C. Memo. 2026-97

ANDRE JACKSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent

__________ Docket No. 7062-25. Filed September 28, 2026.

__________ Andre Jackson, pro se.

Sharyn M. Ortega and David S. Lee, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION NEGA, Judge: By Notice of Deficiency dated February 6, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) determined for tax year 2019 a deficiency in petitioner’s federal income tax of $24,862 and additions to tax of $5,593.95, $6,215.50, and $760.24 under sections 6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654, respectively. 1

The issues for decision are (1) whether petitioner’s unreported retirement account distributions for tax year 2019 resulted in a deficiency and (2) whether petitioner is liable for the additions to tax. We hold for respondent on both issues.

Served 09/28/26 [*2] FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts were stipulated and are so found. The stipulated facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference. Other facts are drawn from the sworn testimony and other evidence admitted at trial. Petitioner resided in California when he timely filed his Petition in this Court. This case was tried on June 17, 2026, in San Francisco, California.

Petitioner retired sometime before tax year 2019 and owned an account with the San Mateo County Employees’ Retirement Association (SamCERA). 2 SamCERA reported on Form 1099–R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., that petitioner received distributions from the retirement account totaling $140,064 in tax year 2019.

For tax years 2018 and 2019 petitioner failed to file Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Respondent prepared a substitute for return (SFR) for petitioner’s 2019 taxable year, pursuant to section 6020(b), comprising Form 4549, Income Tax Examination Changes; Form 886–A, Explanation of Items; and Form 13496, IRC Section 6020(b) Certification. The SFR reflected an adjustment to income of $140,064 based on the distributions from petitioner’s retirement account.

On the basis of the SFR, respondent determined a deficiency of $24,862 in petitioner’s federal income tax for tax year 2019 and additions to tax of $5,593.95, $6,215.50, and $760.24 under sections 6651(a)(1) and (2) and 6654, respectively.

On February 6, 2025, respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Deficiency for tax year 2019. Petitioner timely filed a Petition with this Court disputing the Notice of Deficiency.

A. Burden of Proof In general, the Commissioner’s determinations set forth in a Notice of Deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the determinations are in error. Rule 142(a)(1); see Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). However, in cases of unreported income that are presumptively appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Commissioner’s determination is entitled to a presumption of correctness only if the Commissioner produces foundational evidence linking the taxpayer with the income- producing activity. See Weimerskirch v. Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358, 360–61 (9th Cir. 1979), rev’g 67 T.C. 672 (1977); see also § 7482(b)(1)(A), (2); Edwards v. Commissioner, 680 F.2d 1268, 1270–71 (9th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (holding that the Commissioner’s assertion of a deficiency is presumptively correct once some substantive evidence is introduced demonstrating that the taxpayer received unreported income); Walquist v. Commissioner, 152 T.C. 61, 67 (2019).

Once the Commissioner makes the threshold showing, the burden shifts to the taxpayer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Commissioner’s determinations are arbitrary or erroneous. See Walquist, 152 T.C. at 67–68. Information supplied to the IRS on Forms 1099–R is sufficient to carry this burden. Fonda v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-60, at *6 (citing Hardy v. Commissioner, 181 F.3d 1002, 1004–05 (9th Cir. 1999), aff’g T.C. Memo. 1997-97). Section 6201(d) provides an exception to that general rule. If a taxpayer fully cooperates with the Commissioner and raises a reasonable dispute with respect to an information return, the Commissioner has the burden of producing reasonable and probative evidence to verify the information return in any court proceeding.

Though petitioner initially disputed respondent’s determinations with quintessential tax protester arguments, he abandoned his frivolous position by the time of trial. Instead, petitioner disputes the taxability of the entire retirement distribution reported on Form 1099–R. He argues that the burden is on respondent to provide reasonable and probative evidence verifying the taxability of the distribution because he both fully cooperated with respondent and reasonably disputed the Form 1099–R. [*4] Petitioner produced (1) a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request he made to respondent on March 31, 2025, requesting a plethora of documents relating to tax year 2019; (2) a fax transmission report from March 31, 2025, indicating the FOIA request made on the same date was faxed from petitioner to respondent’s disclosure office; and (3) a response to petitioner’s request from respondent, dated May 7, 2025, with 74 pages of records enclosed. Petitioner contends that he reasonably disputed the Form 1099–R by requesting records from IRS disclosure and SamCERA and requesting a review by respondent’s Independent Office of Appeals, and he asserts that he fully cooperated with respondent by trying to identify and obtain underlying records.

We are not convinced. Petitioner’s mere suggestion that some portion of the distribution may be nontaxable, without more, does not reasonably dispute the information return. See Carlson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-76, 103 T.C.M. (CCH) 1408, 1409–10, aff’d, 604 F. App’x 628 (9th Cir. 2015). Petitioner’s FOIA request does not amount to an actual reasonable dispute of the taxable amount reported on the information return, and he never suggests what the correct amount should be. See id. (finding no reasonable dispute under section 6201(d) where the taxpayer made no showing “that the correct amounts of her taxable income differ from the amounts shown on the third-party information returns upon which [the Commissioner’s] determinations are predicated”). No documentary evidence exists in the record or was presented at trial that contradicts the full taxability of the $140,064 distribution reported on Form 1099–R. Petitioner’s uncorroborated and vague suggestion that some unspecified amounts of the retirement account distribution may be nontaxable is insufficient to constitute a reasonable dispute. See, e.g., White v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-459, 74 T.C.M. (CCH) 866, 868 (“[I]n short, [the taxpayer’s] assertion that [the Commissioner] erred in relying on reports from third- party payors in determining the deficiencies in dispute, standing alone, carries no weight.”).

Further, petitioner did not fully cooperate with respondent because he neither filed federal income tax returns for tax years 2018 and 2019 nor provided respondent with any additional records. See, e.g., Mayer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-295, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 393, 395 (finding section 6201(d) does not apply when taxpayer fails to file federal income tax returns or produce records), aff’d, 29 F. App’x 706 (2d Cir. 2002). [*5] Respondent met his threshold showing requirement by producing (1) Account Transcripts confirming that petitioner filed no return for tax year 2018 or 2019; (2) a Wage and Income Transcript for petitioner’s tax year 2019, reflecting the pension income as reported by SamCERA on Form 1099–R; and (3) a copy of Form 13496. Petitioner does not dispute receiving distributions from his retirement account, and he failed to produce any documentary evidence that would support his position regarding the taxability of the distributions. Petitioner’s argument is further hindered by his failure to file returns for the years at issue. Because petitioner neither reasonably disputed the information return nor fully cooperated with respondent, he has not availed himself of section 6201(d) and therefore retains the burden of proving respondent’s determinations erroneous.

B. Retirement Account Distributions Section 61(a) provides that “gross income” means “all income from whatever source derived.” The scope of section 61(a) is broad, and exclusions from gross income are narrowly construed. Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 328 (1995); Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429 (1955); Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 334 (1940). Taxpayers seeking an exclusion from gross income must show that they are eligible and “must bring themselves within the clear scope of the exclusion.” Dobra v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 339, 349 n.16 (1998) (citing Graves v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 49, 51 (1987), supplementing 88 T.C. 28 (1987)). Distributions from a qualified retirement plan are generally taxable in full unless the taxpayer has acquired a basis in his account (for example, by making after-tax contributions). See §§ 72(b), (e)(6), 402(a), 408(d)(2); Campbell v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 54, 66–67 (1997).

Petitioner did not dispute receiving $140,064 from his retirement account as reported by SamCERA on Form 1099–R; rather, he expressed uncertainty as to whether the entirety of that amount is taxable income. He bore the burden to show otherwise. Petitioner introduced no evidence as to why the full amount of the retirement distribution was not taxable income and has thus failed to carry his burden of proving respondent’s determination was in error.

Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determination that petitioner received $140,064 of taxable retirement income in tax year 2019. [*6] II. Additions to Tax

A. In General The Commissioner bears the burden of production with respect to a taxpayer’s liability for penalties and additions to tax and must produce sufficient evidence indicating that it is appropriate to impose them. See § 7491(c); Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001). As part of that burden, with respect to certain penalties, the Commissioner must also show compliance with the written approval requirement of section 6751(b)(1). See Graev v. Commissioner, 149 T.C. 485, 493–94 (2017), supplementing and overruling in part 147 T.C. 460 (2016). 3 Once the Commissioner meets his burden of production, the taxpayer must come forward with persuasive evidence that the Commissioner’s determination is incorrect or that the taxpayer had reasonable cause or substantial authority for his position. See Higbee, 116 T.C. at 446–47.

B. Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax for Failure to File

Timely Section 6651(a)(1) authorizes the imposition of an addition to tax for failure to file a return timely, unless it is shown that such failure was “due to reasonable cause” and not “willful neglect.” See United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 245 (1985). A taxpayer demonstrates reasonable cause when he shows that, despite exercising ordinary business care and prudence, he was unable to file the return on time, typically for reasons outside his control. See McMahan v. Commissioner, 114 F.3d 366, 368– 69 (2d Cir. 1997), aff’g T.C. Memo. 1995-547. On the other hand, a taxpayer acts with willful neglect when his actions exhibit a “conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference” toward compliance with his obligations under the Code. Boyle, 469 U.S. at 245.

Petitioner admitted at trial that he did not file a tax return for tax year 2018 or 2019. Further, petitioner offered no evidence to establish that his failure to do so was a result of reasonable cause and

C. Section 6651(a)(2) Addition to Tax for Failure to Timely

Pay Section 6651(a)(2) imposes upon a taxpayer an addition to tax for failing to pay taxes shown on a return when due. An SFR constitutes “the return filed by the taxpayer” for purposes of determining the amount of an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2). See § 6651(g)(2). Like the addition for failure to file timely, this addition will not apply if a taxpayer demonstrates that his failure to pay resulted from reasonable cause and not willful neglect. § 6651(a)(2).

Petitioner’s unpaid tax was reflected on an SFR prepared by respondent. Accordingly, as part of his burden of production with respect to the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2), respondent must introduce sufficient evidence to show that the SFR satisfied the requirements of section 6020(b). See Wheeler v. Commissioner, 127 T.C. 200, 208–10 (2006), aff’d, 521 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 2008). Respondent has carried his burden. The record also establishes that petitioner did not pay the amount shown as tax on the SFR. Thus, we sustain respondent’s determination as to the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax.

D. Section 6654(a) Addition to Tax for Failure to Make

Required Estimated Tax Payments Section 6654(a) imposes an addition to tax for failure to make required estimated tax payments. This addition to tax is calculated with reference to four required installment payments of the taxpayer’s estimated tax liability. § 6654(c) and (d). Each required installment is equal to 25% of the “required annual payment.” § 6654(d). Where a taxpayer has not filed a return for the current tax year or the immediately preceding tax year, the “required annual payment” is equal to 90% of the tax due for the current year. § 6654(d)(1)(B). The Commissioner’s burden of production under section 7491(c) requires him to produce, for each year for which the addition to tax is determined, evidence that the taxpayer had a “required annual payment” under section 6654(d). To do so, the Commissioner must establish the tax shown on the taxpayer’s return for the preceding year or demonstrate that the taxpayer filed no such return. See Wheeler, 127 T.C. at 212; Collins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-50, at *47. Petitioner did not file a return for 2018 or 2019 and did not pay estimated tax for 2019. [*8] Section 6654 has no general exception for reasonable cause or good faith, and petitioner has not shown that he satisfied any of the statutory exceptions under section 6654(e). See Mendes v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 308, 323 (2003). We sustain respondent’s determination as to the section 6654(a) addition to tax.

III. Conclusion

We have considered all other arguments made by the parties, and to the extent not discussed above, find those arguments to be irrelevant, moot, or without merit.

To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent.