Motrya Olha Mayewsky v. Commissioner

T.C. Memo. 2008-286UNITED STATES TAX COURT
MOTRYA OLHA MAYEWSKY, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 10820-07. Filed December 22, 2008.
Motrya Olha Mayewsky, pro se.
Kelly R. Morrison-Lee and Scott A. Hovey, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
FOLEY, Judge: The issue for decision is whether petitioner
is entitled to deduct amounts claimed as theft and casualty
losses and as miscellaneous itemized expenses relating to 2003,
2004, and 2005.
- 2 -
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner timely filed her returns relating to 2003, 2004,
and 2005. On each return, petitioner claimed a $10 million theft
and casualty loss relating to a stamp collection, U.S. savings
bonds, and other personal property. On February 14, 2007,
respondent issued petitioner a notice of deficiency relating to
2003, 2004, and 2005, in which respondent disallowed itemized
deductions of $10,012,633, $9,997,469, and $9,994,315,1
respectively, and determined deficiencies of $6,129, $4,469, and
$5,069, respectively. On May 15, 2007, petitioner, while
residing in Virginia, filed her petition with this Court.
OPINION
Section 1652 allows a deduction for casualty and theft
losses sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for
by insurance or otherwise. Sec. 165(a), (c)(3). On the returns
relating to the years in issue, petitioner deducted miscellaneous
itemized expenses and exorbitant casualty and theft losses.
Petitioner contends that her savings bonds, stamp collection, and
other personal valuables were stolen and that her home was
damaged by a flood. There is no credible evidence, however,
1
These amounts were adjusted for computational limitations
based on petitioner’s adjusted gross income.
2
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and in effect for
the years in issue.
- 3 -
supporting petitioner’s contentions and claimed deductions.3 In
fact, petitioner acknowledged that “My putting $10 million
dollars each year from 2003-2205 [sic] was just an estimated
amount”. Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determinations.
Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or
meritless.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
3
Pursuant to sec. 7491(a), petitioner has the burden of
proof with respect to the claimed deductions because she failed
to introduce credible evidence.