Adams v. Comm'r , 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 57 ( 2013 )

T.C. Summary Opinion 2013-57
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ANN MARIE ADAMS, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 13767-12S. Filed July 18, 2013.
Ann Marie Adams, pro se.
William C. Borgardus and Debra Lynne Reale, for respondent.
SUMMARY OPINION
PANUTHOS, Chief 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
-2-
for any other case. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent section references are
to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references
are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
In a notice of deficiency dated March 5, 2012, respondent determined a
deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax of $2,498 for tax year 2010. After
concessions,1 the sole issue for decision is the amount of the section 25A lifetime
learning credit to which petitioner is entitled for tax year 2010.
Background
Petitioner resided in Connecticut when her petition was filed.
This matter was initially called at the calendar call of the Court in Hartford,
Connecticut, on February 11, 2013. The parties appeared and were heard.
Counsel for respondent initially advised the Court that there was a basis of
settlement. It became apparent at the initial hearing that petitioner did not agree
with the terms of the settlement respondent proposed, nor did she agree with the
proposed settlement document respondent’s counsel proffered. The matter was
recalled over the course of the following two days for further oral reports by the
1
Respondent concedes that petitioner paid an additional $100 in qualified
tuition and related expenses and that petitioner thus paid total qualified tuition and
related expenses of $6,534 in 2010. The remaining concessions are discussed in
the background section.
-3-
parties. On February 13, 2013, the parties read into the record certain oral
agreements. The specific agreements were further reflected in an order issued by
the Court on April 4, 2013. The April 4, 2013, order stated as follows:
On February 13, 2013, the parties orally stipulated on the
record the following:
1. Petitioner received and failed to report $17,959 of
unemployment compensation in 2010.
2. Petitioner is not entitled to $370 of claimed earned income
tax credit in 2010.
3. Petitioner is entitled to an additional withholding credit of
$1,732 for 2010.
4. Petitioner is entitled to the standard deduction for 2010 and
does not have enough expenses to claim itemized deductions for
2010.
5. Petitioner is not entitled to the American Opportunity Credit
for 2010.
6. The one remaining issue in the case is the amount petitioner
is entitled to claim for the lifetime learning credit for 2010.
7. With regard to the lifetime learning credit, respondent
concedes that petitioner paid $6,434 of qualified education expenses
in 2010, and petitioner concedes that she received $5,876.50 of
scholarships or grants in 2010.
8. With regard to the lifetime learning credit, the parties
disagree as to whether an entry in the amount of $9,611.50 listed on
an account summary provided by Howard University dated
-4-
September 24, 2010, was expended on qualified education expenses
by petitioner.
The Court permitted petitioner additional time to provide substantiation for
eligibility for the credit, particularly with regard to the $9,611.50 listed on the
account summary. Since the parties were unable to stipulate any documents, the
Court on April 4, 2013, ordered that a six-page document attached to petitioner’s
status report filed March 27, 2013, be entered into evidence as petitioner’s exhibit.
The exhibit includes a statement of account from Howard University, Office of
Student Financial Services. Two pages of the statement, dated February 21, 2013,
reflect charges for the 2010 spring and fall semesters. With respect to the spring
semester there are two items listed as “credit balance direct deposit” in the
amounts of $6,597.50 and $3,014. There are other amounts shown on these pages
of the statement identified as tuition and miscellaneous fees, including a
graduation fee of $100.
The Court ordered the parties to show cause in writing, on or before May 6,
2013, why the case should not be deemed submitted. The Court, not having
received an objection from either party, deemed the matter submitted by order
dated May 15, 2013.
-5-
Discussion
The Commissioner’s determination set forth in a notice of deficiency is
presumed correct, and a taxpayer generally bears the burden of proving otherwise.
Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Deductions are a
matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving
entitlement to any deduction claimed. Rule 142(a); New Colonial Ice Co. v.
Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).
Pursuant to section 7491(a), the burden of proof may shift to the
Commissioner if the taxpayer produces credible evidence with respect to any
relevant factual issue and meets other requirements. Petitioner does not contend
that section 7491(a) shifts the burden of proof to respondent, nor does the record
establish that petitioner satisfies the section 7491(a)(2) requirements.
The only issue for decision is whether the information petitioner submitted
in the exhibit referred to above establishes that petitioner paid qualified tuition and
related expenses in excess of the amount respondent concedes she paid and is thus
entitled to a greater lifetime learning credit under section 25A. Petitioner asserts
that an amount of $9,611.50 (the combination of the $6,597.50 and $3,014)
reflected on the Howard University account summary for the spring 2010 semester
supports her claim. Respondent asserts that the exhibit entered into evidence does
-6-
not support petitioner’s claim for an additional education expense or credit. Thus,
respondent asserts that petitioner is entitled to qualified tuition and related
expenses of only $6,534 ($6,434 agreed to in the oral stipulation plus the $100
concession).
The only evidence in this case is a copy of the Howard University account
statement. The identification of the disputed amounts as charges described as
“credit balance direct deposit” does not lead to the conclusion that petitioner paid
said amounts for education expenses in 2010. There is nothing in this document
which would support petitioner’s assertion that she is entitled to qualified tuition
or education expenses in an amount greater than that allowed by respondent and
previously agreed to by the parties. Petitioner has failed in her burden of proof to
establish any expenditure for qualified tuition and related expenses greater than
that allowed by or agreed to by respondent.
The Court will enter a decision in this case pursuant to Rule 155 because of
the concessions by the parties as enumerated herein. This will provide an
opportunity for the parties to compute the correct tax on the basis of the mutual
concessions and the opinion herein. Petitioner is advised that Rule 155(c)
provides:
-7-
(c) Limit on Argument: Any argument under this Rule will be
confined strictly to consideration of the correct computation of the
amount to be included in the decision resulting from the findings and
conclusions made by the Court, and no argument will be heard upon
or consideration given to the issues or matters disposed of by the
Court’s findings and conclusions or to any new issues. This Rule is
not to be regarded as affording an opportunity for retrial or
reconsideration.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered under
Rule 155.