2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 212 | Tax Ct. | 2005
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
COLVIN, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's income tax of $ 53,524 for 2000 and $ 81,458 for 2001 and that petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to file under
The issues for decision are:
1. Whether respondent's determination of petitioner's income tax deficiencies for 2000 and 2001 is valid. We hold that it is.
2. Whether petitioner was denied equal protection and due process of law because respondent failed to allow business expense deductions based on statistical information. We hold that he was not.
3. Whether petitioner is liable for additions to tax for failure to file under
4. Whether petitioner is liable for a penalty under
Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties submitted this case fully stipulated under
Petitioner lived in Ormond Beach, Florida, when he filed his petition. In 2000 and 2001, petitioner sold insurance and financial products for which he received commissions. He received the following payments:
Type of | |||
Midland Natl. Life Ins. Co. | $129,829 | $221,795 | commissions |
Lifeusa Ins. Co. | 17,812 | commissions | |
Financial Brokerage, Inc. | 8,646 | 3,008 | commissions |
Fidelity & Guaranty, Life Ins. | 1,050 | commissions | |
American Equity Inv. Life Ins. | 6,017 | commissions | |
Charles Schwab & Co. | 541 | 96 | commissions |
Commercial Bank of | 682 | 481 | interest |
Volusia County | $157,510 | $232,447 |
2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 212">*214 Petitioner filed no Federal income tax returns and made no estimated tax payments for 2000 and 2001. No Federal income tax was withheld from his income for 2000 and 2001.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioner had received but failed to report self-employment income from commissions in the amounts of $ 156,287 in 2000 and $ 231,870 in 2001 and interest income in the amounts of $ 1,223 in 2000 and $ 577 in 2001. Respondent determined that petitioner's filing status was single and that he was entitled to claim the standard deduction and one exemption. Respondent determined that petitioner was liable for additions to tax for failure to file under
OPINION
A. Whether Respondent's Determination of Petitioner's Deficiencies in Income Tax for 2000 and 2001 Is Valid
Petitioner contends2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 212">*215 that respondent prepared only "dummy returns" 1 for 2000 and 2001, and that respondent's determination of his deficiencies in income tax for 2000 and 2001 is invalid because respondent did not prepare for each year a substitute return that qualified under
2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 212">*216 Petitioner's contention that the Commissioner must file a substitute for return under
The Commissioner need not prepare a substitute for return under
B. Whether Petitioner Was Denied Equal Protection and Due Process of Law Because Respondent Failed To Allow Business Expense Deductions Based on Statistical Information2005 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 212">*217 for His Industry
Petitioner contends that he was denied equal protection and due process of law because respondent failed to allow business expense deductions based on statistical information for his insurance and financial products industry. We disagree.
A taxpayer may deduct all ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred in carrying on a trade or business.
If a taxpayer establishes that he or she paid a deductible expense but cannot substantiate the precise amount, we may estimate the amount of the deductible expense.
Petitioner asks us to estimate the amount of his business expense deductions under Cohan and contends that he is entitled to deductions based on statistical information for the insurance and financial products industries. We disagree. Cohan does not apply because petitioner did not present evidence (statisticial or otherwise) that he incurred deductible expenses greater than the amount of the standard deduction allowed by respondent. Thus, we have no basis to estimate the amount of his deductible expenses.
Citing
The Commissioner's allowance of business expenses based on Bureau of Labor Statistics figures in Brenner does not establish that respondent routinely allows a business deduction based on statistics or industry averages or that respondent is required to use them. Our responsibility as a Court is to apply the law to the facts of the case before us; how the Commissioner treated other taxpayers is generally irrelevant in making that determination,
We conclude that petitioner is not entitled to business deductions based on statistical information and that he was not denied equal protection or due process of law because respondent did not allow such deductions.
Petitioner offers no defense to the additions to tax determined by respondent. We conclude that he is liable for the additions to tax for failure to file under
D. Whether Petitioner Is Liable for a Penalty Under
Respondent alleges for the first time on brief that petitioner is liable for a penalty under
The Court may impose a penalty of up to $ 25,000 if the position or positions asserted by the taxpayer in the case are frivolous or groundless or the proceedings were instituted primarily for delay.
Petitioner's contention that the Commissioner cannot determine a deficiency for a year for which a taxpayer did not file a return is frivolous.
However, not all of petitioner's arguments are frivolous. For example, petitioner contended in his*223 pretrial memorandum that respondent is required to reduce petitioner's gross receipts by the average business expense for the insurance industry. Petitioner pointed out that in
We do not impose a penalty under
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for respondent.
Footnotes
1. A "dummy return" is generated to open an account for the taxpayer on the master file and normally consists of a first page of a Form 1040, U. S. Individual Income Tax Return, which contains a taxpayer's name, address, and Social Security number. Internal Revenue Manual, Chief Counsel Directives Manual-Tax Litigation,
sec. 35.4.27.2 (Nov. 16, 1999); seeSpurlock v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo 2003-124">T.C. Memo 2003-124↩ n. 18.2.
Sec. 6020(b) provides:SEC. 6020(b) . Execution of Return by Secretary. --(1) Authority of Secretary to execute return. -- If any person
fails to make any return required by any internal revenue law or
regulation made thereunder at the time prescribed therefor, or
makes, willfully or otherwise, a false or fraudulent return, the
Secretary shall make such return from his own knowledge and from
such information as he can obtain through testimony or
otherwise.
(2) Status of returns. -- Any return so made and subscribed by
the Secretary shall be prima facie good and sufficient for all
legal purposes.↩
3. Petitioner does not contend that the burden of proof shifts to respondent under
sec. 7491(a)↩ .