Bugarin v. Comm'r , 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 61 ( 2013 )

T.C. Summary Opinion 2013-61
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JESSE BUGARIN AND PATRICIA BUGARIN, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 5047-12S. Filed July 23, 2013.
Jesse Bugarin and Patricia Bugarin, pro sese.
Jenny R. Casey, for respondent.
SUMMARY OPINION
DEAN, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions
of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.
Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by any
other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.
-2-
Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Respondent issued a statutory notice of deficiency to petitioners for 2009 in
which he determined a deficiency in income tax of $19,439 and an accuracy-
related penalty under section 6662(a) of $3,887.80.
The issues for decision are whether: (1) petitioners are entitled to deduct
expenses reported on Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss, and
(2) petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).1
A few of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of
facts and the exhibits received in evidence are incorporated herein by reference.
Petitioners resided in California when the petition was filed.
Background
Petitioners timely filed their joint Federal income tax return for 2009.
Petitioners’ return was prepared by a return preparer. Petitioner Jesse Bugarin was
1
The Court considers petitioners to have conceded respondent’s
determinations disallowing itemized deductions and a personal exemption because
petitioners provided neither argument nor evidence on those issues at trial. See,
e.g., Bradley v. Commissioner, 100 T.C. 367, 370 (1993); Sundstrand Corp. &
Subs. v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 226, 344 (1991); Rybak v. Commissioner, 91 T.C.
524, 566 n.19 (1988); Money v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 46, 48 (1987); Leahy v.
Commissioner, 87 T.C. 56, 73-74 (1986).
-3-
employed by Cannon Safe, Inc., in sales and customer service. Mr. Bugarin was
not engaged in any real estate activity. Patricia Bugarin (petitioner), was not
otherwise employed in 2009 and was solely responsible for petitioners’ rental real
estate activities. Petitioners have two minor children, the youngest of whom was
four years old in 2009 and was taken care of in the home.
Petitioners’ Schedule E, attached to their 2009 Federal income tax return,
reported three properties: property A at 5556 Dean Way; property B at 5566 Dean
Way; and property C at 731 East G Street. The three properties, single-family
homes, were purchased in 2009. Property A generated no rental income during
2009. Properties A and B were next door to each other. Each property generated
a loss, and the losses totaled $43,129.
Petitioners did not engage a management company, and petitioner was
responsible for renting the three properties and having repairs made to them.
Petitioner had no experience managing real estate but was “very handy” and was
able to paint and make various repairs. In addition to her responsibility for the
three rental properties, petitioner spent a substantial portion of her time looking
for additional rental properties to acquire. Petitioners, however, did not actually
purchase in 2009 any rental properties other than the three properties at issue in
this case. At trial petitioners provided a log to the Court to account for the time
-4-
spent on the rental real estate activities. When respondent’s counsel asked
petitioner “when” the log was created, she responded that she created the log of
her rental real estate activities using her cell phone and “Outlook” software.
Discussion
Generally, the Commissioner’s determinations in a notice of deficiency are
presumed correct, and the taxpayer has the burden of proving that those
determinations are erroneous. See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111,
115 (1933). In some cases the burden of proof with respect to relevant factual
issues may shift to the Commissioner under section 7491(a). The Court finds that
petitioners have not argued or shown that they have met the requirements of
section 7491(a), and therefore the burden of proof does not shift to respondent.
Section 162 allows deductions for all the ordinary and necessary expenses
paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on a trade or business. A trade
or business is an activity engaged in with “continuity and regularity”.
Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23, 35 (1987). Section 212 allows
deductions for individuals for all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or
incurred during the taxable year for the production of income or the management
or maintenance of property held for the production of income.
-5-
Passive Activity Losses
If a taxpayer is an individual, however, the “passive activity loss” for the
taxable year shall not be allowed. Sec. 469(a). The term “passive activity loss”
means the amount by which “the aggregate losses from all passive activities”
exceeds “the aggregate income from all passive activities” for the taxable year.
Sec. 469(d)(1). For purposes of section 469(a), “passive activities” are, with
certain exceptions, activities involving a trade or business in which the taxpayer
does not “materially participate”. Sec. 469(c)(1). The general rule is that a rental
activity is treated as a per se passive activity regardless of whether the taxpayer
materially participates. Sec. 469(c)(2), (4). Rental activity is any activity “where
payments are principally for the use of tangible property.” Sec. 469(j)(8).
Real Property Business
If a taxpayer qualifies under section 469(c)(7)(B), however, the rental
activity of the qualifying taxpayer is not treated as a per se passive activity under
section 469(c)(2). Sec. 469(c)(7)(A); Kosonen v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2000-107. Rather, the qualifying taxpayer’s rental real estate activity is treated as
a trade or business--subject to the material participation requirements of section
469(c)(1). Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-223; sec. 1.469-9(e)(1),
Income Tax Regs.
-6-
A taxpayer qualifies for the real property business exception if he owns at
least one interest in rental real estate and meets both of the following requirements
of section 469(c)(7)(B): (1) more than one-half of the personal services performed
in trades or businesses by the taxpayer during the taxable year are performed in
real property trades or businesses in which he materially participates and (2) the
taxpayer performed more than 750 hours of services during the taxable year in real
property trades or businesses in which he materially participates. Sec.
469(c)(7)(B)(i) and (ii); sec. 1.469-9(b)(6), Income Tax Regs. In the case of a
joint return, both requirements must be satisfied by the same spouse. Sec.
469(c)(7)(B). Because petitioner was not employed outside of her real estate
activity, the Court addresses only the second requirement.
For purposes of the 750-hour threshold, the Court looks at all of the
taxpayer’s real property trades or businesses to determine whether that
requirement is satisfied. Fitch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-358; Harnett
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2011-191, aff’d, 496 Fed. Appx. 963 (11th Cir.
2012); see also Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-223, Bailey v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-296. And if the taxpayer does not materially
participate in a particular activity, that activity does not count towards the 750-
hour threshold. DeGuzman v. United States, 147 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.N.J. 2001).
-7-
The determination of whether the taxpayer materially participated in his
rental real estate activity must be considered separately with respect to each rental
activity unless the taxpayer makes an election to treat all of his rental activities as
a single activity. Sec. 469(c)(7)(A); Fitch v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2012-
358; Fowler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-223; Shaw v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2002-35; sec. 1.469-9(e)(1), Income Tax Regs. Petitioners, however,
did not make an election to group their rental real estate activities, so material
participation must be determined separately for each rental activity.
Petitioners submitted a three-ring binder with 12 dividers containing copies
of substantially similar printed sheets purporting to document petitioner’s real
estate activities monthly for 2009. Each of the sheets bears a date and states a
certain number of hours, and many of the sheets reference one of the three
properties at issue. Petitioners offered no evidence that the sheets were prepared
contemporaneously with the events they describe. Some of the sheets describe an
activity without ascribing it to a particular property, and some of the sheets
mention a particular property without describing any activity. Some of the sheets
attribute an activity to a particular property without explaining how the activity
relates to the property. Some of the entries appear to exaggerate the amount of
-8-
time spent for a particular task, such as recording 20 hours for painting a bathroom
in one of the houses.
Because petitioners did not make an election to group their rental real estate
activities, the work related to each property must be examined separately to
determine whether petitioner materially participated in the rental activity. Material
participation means that the taxpayer is involved in the operations of the activity
on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis. Sec. 469(h)(1). Temporary
regulations relating to the meaning of the term “material participation” in section
469(h)(1) provide that, in general, an individual shall be treated, for purposes of
section 469 and the regulations thereunder, as materially participating in an
activity for the taxable year if and only if he meets one of the following criteria:
(1) the individual participates in the activity for more than 500 hours during such
year; (2) the individual’s participation in the activity for the taxable year
constitutes substantially all of the participation in such activity of all individuals
(including individuals who are not owners of interests in the activity) for such
year; (3) the individual participates in the activity for more than 100 hours during
the taxable year, and such individual’s participation in the activity for the taxable
year is not less than the participation in the activity of any other individual
(including individuals who are not owners of interests in the activity) for such
-9-
year; (4) the activity is a “significant participation” activity2 for the taxable year,
and the individual’s aggregate participation in all significant participation
activities during such year exceeds 500 hours; (5) the individual materially
participated in the activity for any 5 taxable years (whether or not consecutive)
during the 10 taxable years that immediately precede the taxable year; (6) the
activity is a personal service activity, and the individual materially participated in
the activity for any 3 taxable years preceding the taxable year; or (7) on the basis
of all of the facts and circumstances, the individual participated in the activity on a
regular, continuous, and substantial basis during such year. Sec. 1.469-5T(a),
Temporary Income Tax Regs., 53 Fed. Reg. 5725 (Feb. 25, 1988). 3
Petitioner’s binder purports to record a total of about 810 hours devoted to
her real estate activities in 2009. She testified that she spent “a good 50 percent”
of her time “out and about looking” or on the phone or the computer looking for
additional homes to purchase. The Court analyzed the binder sheets and found
entries suggesting that over 200 hours were dedicated to “prospecting”, looking,
2
A significant participation activity is one in which the individual
participates for more than 100 hours during the year. Sec. 1.469-5T(c)(2),
Temporary Income Tax Regs., 53 Fed. Reg. 5726 (Feb. 25, 1988).
3
An individual who participates in an activity for 100 hours or less will not
be treated as materially participating in the activity under criterion (7). Sec. 1.469-
5T(b)(2)(iii), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 53 Fed. Reg. 5726 (Feb. 25, 1988).
- 10 -
searching, viewing, or meeting for or about potential home purchases and
associated activities.
In general, work done by an individual in connection with an activity in
which he owns an interest is treated as participation in the activity. Sec. 1.469-
5(f), Income Tax Regs. The legislative history of section 469 suggests, however,
that only participation that is related to the operation of the business is to be
counted for purposes of the material participation test. S. Rept. No. 99-313, at 732
(1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 732.
The Court examined the hours listed on the sheets for activity ascribed to
property A and determined that the total was 45 hours. Petitioner could qualify as
materially participating in the property A activity only under criterion (2).
Accepting at face value the hours and activities listed specifically for property A,
the Court determined that at least 20 of the hours spent on this property, 44% of
the total, involved the participation of other individuals who were not owners of
the property. Therefore, petitioner’s participation in the property A activity for the
taxable year did not constitute substantially all of the participation in that activity
of all individuals during the taxable year and so petitioner did not materially
participate in the activity in 2009.
- 11 -
The Court did not count general listings for items like banking, meetings, or
visiting stores that did not reference a particular property as it was not apparent
that they represented services in petitioner’s rental real estate activities or to which
of the three rental properties they might relate if they were such services. The
Court also excluded petitioner’s activities in pursuit of acquiring ownership in
new properties because they were not related to the operation of petitioner’s
respective rental activities related to the three rental properties petitioners already
owned in 2009. Petitioner’s “prospecting” activity cannot be connected to any one
of the three rental properties and therefore cannot be included as material
participation in their respective operations.
Accepting at face value all of the hours and activities listed that were
ascribed specifically to either property B or property C, the Court determined that
petitioner devoted 228.5 hours to property B and 178 hours to property C. In
addition, petitioner listed one hour each month for “accounting” for the properties.
Assuming material participation in the two above rental property activities in
2009, petitioner performed only 418.5 hours of services in real property rental
activities in which she materially participated.
The Court considered whether petitioner’s “prospecting” activity might be
considered the separate real property trade or business of the “acquisition” of real
- 12 -
property. See sec. 469(c)(7)(C); secs. 1.469-9(d)(1), 1.469-4(b)(1)(ii), Income
Tax Regs. But even if the Court treated the 224 hours or so of prospecting activity
as a separate real property trade or business in which petitioner materially
participated, the total hours that petitioner devoted to real property trades or
businesses in which she materially participated would be only 642.5 (418.5 +
224), which is over 100 hours less than the 750 hours necessary to qualify for the
section 469(c)(7) exception.
Because the section 469(c)(7) exception is not available to petitioners, the
Court finds that their rental real estate activities for 2009 are passive activities and
their losses are subject to the section 469(a) limitation.
Offset for Rental Real Estate Activities
Section 469(i), with respect to rental real estate activities in which an
individual actively participates, provides that the section 469(a) disallowance will
not apply to a portion of the individual’s passive activity losses. An annual
maximum of one $25,000 offset is allowed for all of a taxpayer’s rental real estate
activities. Sec. 469(i)(2). This exemption begins to phase out where the
taxpayer’s adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds certain levels. Sec. 469(i)(3).
The phase out in petitioners’ situation is 50% of the amount by which their AGI
- 13 -
(computed without regard to passive activity losses) exceeds $100,000. See sec.
469(i)(3)(A), (F)(iv).
Petitioners’ AGI for 2009 computed without regard to passive activity
losses was $281,142 ($238,013 + $43,129). Their AGI so computed was
$181,142 greater than $100,000. Reducing the $25,000 offset by 50% of
$181,142, or $90,571.50, results in a complete phase out of the offset.
Accuracy-Related Penalty
Respondent determined an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a)
and (b)(1) and (2) for an underpayment attributable to negligence or a substantial
understatement of income tax. Section 7491(c) imposes on the Commissioner the
burden of production in any court proceeding with respect to the liability of any
individual for penalties and additions to tax. Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C.
438, 446 (2001); Trowbridge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-164, aff’d, 378
F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 2004). In order to meet the burden of production under section
7491(c), the Commissioner need only make a prima facie case that imposition of
the penalty or the addition to tax is appropriate. Higbee v. Commissioner, 116
T.C. at 446.
- 14 -
Respondent determined that for 2009 petitioners underpaid a portion of their
income tax on account of negligence or disregard of rules or regulations and that
there was a substantial understatement of income tax.
Section 6662(a) imposes a 20% penalty on the portion of an underpayment
of tax attributable to any one of various factors, including negligence or disregard
of rules or regulations and a substantial understatement of income tax. Sec.
6662(b)(1) and (2). “Negligence” includes any failure to make a reasonable
attempt to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. See sec.
6662(c); sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs. A “substantial understatement”
includes an understatement of income tax that exceeds the greater of 10% of the
tax required to be shown on the return or $5,000. Sec. 6662(d); sec. 1.6662-4(b),
Income Tax Regs.
Section 6664(c)(1) provides that the penalty under section 6662(a) shall not
apply to any portion of an underpayment if it is shown that there was reasonable
cause for the taxpayer’s position and that the taxpayer acted in good faith with
respect to that portion. The determination of whether a taxpayer acted with
reasonable cause and in good faith is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into
account all the pertinent facts and circumstances. Sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income
Tax Regs.
- 15 -
Section 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs., specifically provides:
“Circumstances that may indicate reasonable cause and good faith include an
honest misunderstanding of fact or law that is reasonable in light of all the facts
and circumstances, including the experience, knowledge, and education of the
taxpayer.” The most important factor is the extent of the taxpayer’s effort to
assess his proper tax liability for the year. Id.
Petitioners reported a tax liability of $43,595. Petitioners’ actual tax
liability is $63,034. Petitioners have a substantial understatement of income tax
for 2009 since the understatement exceeds 10% of the tax required to be shown on
the return, which is greater than $5,000.
The Court concludes that respondent has produced sufficient evidence to
show that the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) is appropriate for
2009.
Petitioners claimed $27,456 of itemized deductions for which they offered
at trial no substantiation or explanation. Their log of real estate activities failed to
justify their claimed rental real estate deductions. Petitioners did not show that
there was reasonable cause for, and that they acted in good faith with respect to,
the underpayment of tax for 2009.
- 16 -
Therefore, respondent’s determination of the accuracy-related penalty under
section 6662(a) for 2009 is sustained.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.