DocketNumber: Docket No. 7344-12.
Citation Numbers: 112 T.C.M. 629, 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 220, 2016 T.C. Memo. 222
Filed Date: 12/7/2016
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Decision will be entered.
BUCH,
*223 business for 2006 and 2007 and a net operating loss (NOL) carryforward from prior years to offset his taxable income for 2007. The Commissioner determined that Mr. Chaganti was not entitled to deductions for many of the expenses or to a foreign tax credit he claimed, that he was not entitled to deduct the NOL carryforward, that he owed additional self-employment tax, and that he was liable for
Mr. Chaganti is a self-employed attorney who practices in Missouri and California. During the years in issue 12 of his docketed cases with activity were in St. Louis, Missouri, 1 was in Kansas City, Kansas, 2 were in Los Angeles, California, and 2 were in the San Francisco Bay area.4
Mr. Chaganti used two different addresses, one in St. Louis, Missouri, and one in Los Angeles, California, but had closer ties to St. Louis. He maintained a Missouri driver's license and had family ties to St. Louis during the years in issue. Accordingly, his principal residence was in St. Louis, Missouri.
Mr. Chaganti traveled from Missouri to California. Mr. Chaganti provided Southwest Airlines confirmations for some of the flights that he took during the years in issue. Most of the Southwest Airlines confirmations show that he paid less than $10 for each of the tickets. Mr. Chaganti explained that he purchased Southwest Airlines travel coupons or vouchers*222 from Southwest Airlines patrons or *225 employees and used them to purchase round trip tickets for himself at a cost of approximately $325 per round trip; however, Mr. Chaganti did not provide any proof of payment.
For tax year 20025 Mr. Chaganti filed his Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, and reported $25,218 in adjusted gross income.
For tax year 2003 Mr. Chaganti filed his Form 1040 and reported negative adjusted gross income of $18,048. He did not elect to forgo the NOL carryback requirement for that year. He attached a Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business, to his 2003 return for his legal services business, reporting gross receipts of $31,568 and expenses of $50,360, resulting in a net loss of $18,792.
For tax year 2004 Mr. Chaganti filed his Form 1040 reporting negative adjusted gross income of $60,061.6 Mr. Chaganti did not elect to forgo the NOL *226 carryback for that year. The negative adjusted gross income of $60,061 is attributable in part to Mr. Chaganti's Schedule C legal services business. On his Schedule C he reported gross receipts of $30,255 and total expenses of $89,598, which yields a net loss of $59,343. Included in the total expenses*223 were contract labor expenses of $55,000. Mr. Chaganti provided substantiation for approximately $23,600 of these expenses, $7,500 of which is for contract labor.7
For tax year 2005 Mr. Chaganti filed his Form 1040 and reported negative adjusted gross income of $29,104. Mr. Chaganti did not elect to forgo the NOL carryback for that year. The negative adjusted gross income of $29,104 is attributable in part to Mr. Chaganti's Schedule C legal services business. On his Schedule C he reported gross receipts of $71,200 and total expenses of $106,589, which yields a net loss of $31,968. Included in the total expenses were contract labor expenses of $55,000. Mr. Chaganti did not substantiate these expenses. The only evidence Mr. Chaganti offered to substantiate these expenses was *227 statements that he requested per diem reimbursements from his brother's business.8
Mr. Chaganti filed his Form 1040 for tax year 2006 late, and the Commissioner received his return on June 8, 2010. On his Schedule C Mr. Chaganti reported gross receipts of $43,200, travel expenses of $3,695, meals and entertainment expenses of $1,245, and other expenses of $40,000, which he described as*224 "Prior years travel and per diem expense", in addition to other expenses. Overall, he reported a net business loss of $13,048. He attached a Form 8582, Passive Activity Loss Limitations, to his return and listed a prior year's unallowed passive loss of $59,343 described as "LEGAL SERVICES".
Mr. Chaganti filed his Form 1040 for tax year 2007 late, and the Commissioner received his return on May 28, 2010. On his Schedule C Mr. Chaganti reported gross receipts of $80,397, travel expenses of $3,463, meals and entertainment expenses of $2,226, and other expenses of $43,535, which comprised "Prior years travel and per diem expense" of $22,200, "Court ordered payments" of $20,425, and "Filing [f]ees for appeals, writs" of $910, in addition to *228 other expenses. He attached a Form 8582 to his return and listed a prior year's unallowed passive loss of $59,343 described as "LEGAL SERVICES" and used $17,208 of the loss to offset $17,208 in legal services income from his Schedule C business, leaving an overall net business profit of zero. He also claimed a foreign tax credit of $6.
On January 6, 2012, the Commissioner issued a notice of deficiency determining the following deficiencies,*225 additions to tax, and penalties with respect to Mr. Chaganti's Federal income tax for years 2006 and 2007:
Addition to tax | Penalty | ||
2006 | $9,332 | $2,102 | $1,866 |
2007 | 21,936 | 5,192 | 4,387 |
The Commissioner determined that Mr. Chaganti was not entitled to deduct the travel expenses, meals and entertainment, and other expenses9 that he reported for those years on his Schedules C. The Commissioner determined that he was liable for additional self-employment tax because of his increased net earnings but could *229 take a corresponding deduction. For 2007 the Commissioner determined that Mr. Chaganti could not deduct an NOL carryforward of $17,208 and that he was not entitled to a foreign tax credit of $6.
While residing in Missouri, Mr. Chaganti timely filed a petition for redetermination.
Mr. Chaganti moved for partial summary judgment on whether he could deduct (1) business expenses he had paid in previous years and (2) the Court-ordered payments of $20,687 that he made in 2007. The Commissioner filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the same issues. On December 17, 2013, the Court issued an opinion on these motions.
With respect to the*226 first issue, the Court found that Mr. Chaganti had received $40,000 and $22,200 in 2006 and 2007, respectively, from his brother's business as reimbursement for expenses paid in 2001 through 2005.
With respect to the issue involving the deductibility of the Court-ordered payments totaling $20,687, the Court decided that issue in part. The Court held that Mr. Chaganti was barred under
Later, the Court held trial on the remaining issues in St. Louis, Missouri. At the close of trial we instructed Mr. Chaganti to prepare a chart or table that tied his claimed travel expenses to a trip. We explained: So, for example, if you say I was in Los Angeles on March 13th of 2007. And you can direct me to a docket sheet and you can direct me to a Southwest voucher. Then what you can do in your brief, maybe it's a table, maybe it's a chart, but you can include in your brief, you *231 know, travel to L.A., Southwest voucher this date, duration of travel, three days.
As part of his brief, Mr. Chaganti provided a table that purported to detail when he traveled during the years in issue. Mr. Chaganti prefaced the table with this disclaimer: Petitioner presents the following table with the number of days spent at each location based on his best information and recollection. It is respectfully suggested that there may be slight discrepancies between this table and other records.
Overall, a myriad of issues remains for us to decide. The Commissioner conceded that a portion of Mr. Chaganti's travel was business related, that he was entitled to deduct a portion of his reported travel expenses,10 and that he could deduct the $262 sanction he paid to opposing counsel in 2007. After these concessions, the remaining issues we must decide are: (1) whether the burden of proof shifts to the Commissioner; (2) whether Mr. Chaganti is entitled to deduct the remaining travel and meals and entertainment expenses he reported; (3) *232 whether Mr. Chaganti can offset net business profit with an NOL he carried forward from prior years; (4) whether Mr. Chaganti can reduce the gross receipts he reported; (5) whether Mr. Chaganti can deduct the $18,125 sanction he paid pursuant to a Court order under
The Commissioner's determinations in the notice of deficiency are generally presumed correct, and taxpayers bear the burden of proving otherwise.11 The burden with respect to a factual issue may shift to the Commissioner under
The Code allows a deduction for "ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business".12 Taxpayers are not allowed a deduction for personal, living, or family expenses except where specifically allowed in the Code.13 Deductions are a "matter of legislative grace",*230 14 and taxpayers must maintain sufficient records to establish their claimed deductions.15 These records must be retained for as long as the contents may become material and must be kept available for inspection.16
Certain expenses are subject to strict substantiation rules under
In some instances the Court*231 may approximate the amount if the taxpayer can establish a deductible expense but cannot substantiate the precise amount.21*235 However, the taxpayer must provide some basis for that estimate.22 And the Court is precluded from making estimates with regard to expenses that are subject to the strict substantiation requirements under
As discussed above, If the nature of the taxpayer's employment is such that when away from home, during released time, it is reasonable for him to need and to obtain sleep or rest in order to meet the exigencies of his employment or the business demands of his employment, his expenditures (including incidental expenses, such as tips) for the *236 purpose of obtaining sleep or rest are*232 deductible traveling expenses under
Although traveling expenses may be deducted under
When determining a taxpayer's "tax home" we have previously held that as a general rule, a taxpayer's tax home is defined as the taxpayer's principal place of business.31 Conversely, "[a]n employee without a principal place of business may treat a permanent place of residence at which he incurs substantial continuing living expenses as his tax home."32 And if a taxpayer does not have a principal *238 place of business or a permanent residence, then the taxpayer's home is "wherever he happens to be."33
Taxpayers have the burden of proof to show that they had a tax home, and this inquiry is a factual question.34 We have previously explained that "[w]hile the subjective intent of the taxpayer is to be considered in determining whether he has a tax home, for purposes of
Mr. Chaganti's principal place of business during the years in issue was St. Louis, Missouri. Twelve of his seventeen docketed cases during those years were in St. Louis.*234 Mr. Chaganti argued that this breakdown did not provide the full picture because the California cases represented higher potential revenue. However, he did not offer records to show a closer connection between his *239 business and California. Accordingly, Mr. Chaganti's principal place of business was St. Louis, and his tax home was St. Louis.
As previously explained, travel expenses are subject to strict substantiation. Beyond the travel expense deductions that the Commissioner conceded, we hold that Mr. Chaganti is entitled to deduct only per diem amounts for meal expenses for those trips that the Commissioner conceded were business-related travel when Mr. Chaganti was away from his tax home of St. Louis, Missouri. The exact per diem amounts for meals and incidental expenses, computed at the Federal meals and incidental expenses rate for the locality of travel for each calendar day that Mr. Chaganti was away from home, will be determined under
Although Mr. Chaganti argued that he is entitled to use per diem amounts for lodging because he had a contract for reimbursement from his brother's business, he is mistaken. Self-employed individuals are not eligible to use per *240 diem amounts*235 for lodging.37 Further, Mr. Chaganti has not provided evidence to show he incurred actual lodging expenses.
Mr. Chaganti has not adequately substantiated the remaining meals and entertainment and travel expenses he reported.
Generally, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing both the actual existence of an NOL for another year and the amount of that NOL that may be *242 carried to the years in issue.42 A taxpayer's return is merely a statement of the taxpayer's position and cannot be used to substantiate a deduction.43 We have jurisdiction to consider facts related to years other than the years in issue in order to redetermine the liability for the periods before us.44
Mr. Chaganti reported NOLs for 2003, 2004,*237 and 2005 and used an NOL carryforward to offset net income from his Schedule C legal business in 2007. Mr. Chaganti did not elect to forgo the requirement to carry his NOLs back. We will take each claimed NOL in turn.
Put simply, for 2003 Mr. Chaganti provided no evidence of any excess loss to carry forward. Even if we accept that Mr. Chaganti had an NOL for that year, he would be required to first carry the NOL back to 2001 and 2002.45 Mr. Chaganti did not offer evidence about his income tax for 2001 or 2002, and thus he failed to prove that the NOL was not fully absorbed in 2001 or 2002. Because of that failure of proof, he has no NOL to carry forward.
*243 For 2004 Mr. Chaganti has not established that he actually had an NOL. Mr. Chaganti's NOL was a function of the net Schedule C business loss he reported. On his return Mr. Chaganti reported gross receipts of $30,255 and expenses of $89,598, which equals a net loss of $59,343. His total expenses of $89,598 included $55,000 of contract labor expenses. Mr. Chaganti provided substantiation for only $7,500 of the contract labor expenses and for approximately $16,100 of the other expenses he reported. Although Mr. Chaganti might be entitled*238 to deduct some per diem amounts for meals for business travel for 2004, he has not proven that his business expenses exceeded the gross receipts he reported. Accordingly, he has not established a net business loss and is not entitled to any NOL deduction for 2004.
Likewise for 2005 Mr. Chaganti has not established that he actually had an NOL. Mr. Chaganti's NOL was a function of the net Schedule C business loss he reported. On his return Mr. Chaganti reported gross receipts of $71,200 and expenses of $106,589, which equals a net loss of $31,968. His total expenses of $106,589 included $55,000 of contract labor expenses. Mr. Chaganti did not substantiate any of his reported expenses for 2005. Although the Commissioner stipulated that Mr. Chaganti made a few court appearances in California during 2005, Mr. Chaganti did not submit any documents to show what expenses he *244 incurred. The only documents Mr. Chaganti provided were bills he submitted to his brother's business for reimbursement. These documents do not show that Mr. Chaganti actually incurred expenses. Accordingly, he did not establish a net business loss and has not shown entitlement to any NOL deduction for 2005.
Overall, Mr.*239 Chaganti cannot use an NOL to offset income for 2007 because he has not proven he had any NOL left over to carry forward for 2003 and has not proven he actually had an NOL for 2004 or 2005.
Mr. Chaganti argues that his gross receipts for 2006 and 2007 should be reduced from the amounts he reported by $40,000 and $22,200, respectively, because these amounts represented client reimbursements and should not be taxable. He cites a case holding that if a lawyer has a contractual right to reimbursement for expenses the lawyer pays on behalf of a client, then the lawyer must treat these amounts as advances.46 Under this approach the lawyer cannot *245 deduct the expenses he pays on behalf of the client and does not have gross income when the client reimburses the lawyer for the expenses the lawyer paid.47
Mr. Chaganti's argument has merit, but he has failed to substantiate his position. The Court previously held that Mr. Chaganti received $40,000 and $22,200 in 2006 and 2007, respectively, from his brother's business as reimbursement for expenses paid from 2001 to 2005, but the Court did not make any determination as to the "veracity of the expenses themselves."48 Mr. Chaganti*240 cannot treat these expenses as client advances because he failed to substantiate them.
In our prior opinion we held that Mr. Chaganti could not deduct the $18,125 sanction imposed by a court under
Under
It may be helpful to contrast the penal sanction imposed on Mr. Chaganti pursuant to
Mr. Chaganti argued that he should be allowed a deduction under
Because the
The Code imposes in addition to other taxes a tax on the net earnings from self-employment of individuals.59 Net earnings from self-employment are defined as "the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by such individual, less the deductions allowed by this subtitle which are attributable to such trade or business".60 And
Mr. Chaganti has a legal services business and is liable for self-employment tax on his net earnings from that business. The exact amount of self-employment tax and any corresponding deduction will be based on
The Code requires individuals to file income tax returns by April 15 of the year following the calendar year for which the return is being filed61 and imposes consequences on those who fail to timely file their tax returns.62 One such consequence is found in
Mr. Chaganti filed his returns for 2006 and 2007 late. He argues that his filing was late because his tax issues were complex, he was extremely busy with his business, and his mother was ill. Tax issues are often complex, and return*244 filing is time consuming; but complexity and lack of time alone do not remove the *251 requirement to timely file one's return.65 Because Mr. Chaganti has not shown his tardy filing was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect, he is liable for the
As defined in the Code, negligence includes any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of title 26, and the term "disregard" includes any careless, reckless, or intentional disregard.68 Negligence *252 has been further defined as a "lack of due care or failure to do what a reasonable and ordinarily prudent person would do under the circumstances."69 Additionally, a taxpayer*245 is negligent if he or she fails to maintain sufficient records to substantiate the items in question.70
An understatement of income tax is "substantial" if the understatement exceeds the greater of 10% of the tax required to be shown on the return or $5,000.71 However, if the taxpayer has substantial authority for the tax treatment of an item, then the portion of the tax attributable to that item is not included in the understatement.72 A taxpayer has substantial authority only if the weight of authority supporting the tax treatment of the item outweighs the contrary authority.73
After taking into account the parties' concessions, Mr. Chaganti's understatements for both 2006 and 2007 are greater than 5,000 and exceed 10% of *253 the tax required to be shown on the respective returns. Accordingly, the Commissioner has met his burden of production for the accuracy-related penalties because of substantial understatements of income tax.
The Commissioner has also satisfied his burden of production for the accuracy-related penalties because of negligence. Taxpayers are required to maintain adequate records.74 And negligence includes a failure to keep adequate books and*246 records or to substantiate items.75 Mr. Chaganti acted negligently because he failed to substantiate many of the expenses he reported.
Mr. Chaganti did not prove he acted with reasonable cause and in good faith. He argued that he was not a tax lawyer and "didn't know all the intricacies * * * about tax law". He explained that he did not keep good business records because of the chaotic nature of his legal services business. Also, he explained that he had returned many of the client records to his clients and that some of his other records had been lost. These explanations do not show that Mr. Chaganti acted with reasonable cause and in good faith. We have previously explained that "[r]easonable cause requires that the taxpayer have exercised ordinary business *254 care and prudence as to the disputed item."76 Mr. Chaganti did not. Accordingly, he is liable for the
Mr. Chaganti has failed to substantiate many of the expenses he reported for his legal services business. He did not keep adequate records to prove that he incurred NOLs to carry forward. And he did not timely file his tax returns. Because of his failure of proof, he was not entitled*247 to deductions for many of the expenses or to the foreign tax credit he claimed. He is liable for self-employment tax on his earnings. He is also liable for the additions to tax and accuracy-related penalties for 2006 and 2007.
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Although M 1 r. Chaganti filed an entry of appearance with the Court to represent himself, his status as an attorney does not change the fact that he is appearing "pro se", which translates to "for oneself".↩
2. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All monetary amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.↩
3. We issued a previous opinion in this case.
4. We reserved ruling on Exhibit 29-P. That exhibit was offered by Mr. Chaganti, but he did not cite it in his proposed findings of fact. In contrast, the Commissioner objected to Exhibit 29-P but relied on it in his answering brief. Thus, we will treat his objection as withdrawn and admit Exhibit 29-P.↩
5. Neither party offered evidence into the record about Mr. Chaganti's tax reporting for tax years before 2002.↩
6. Mr. Chaganti reported a Schedule C business loss of $59,343 but erroneously reported this amount as a passive activity loss. Mr. Chaganti also reported negative adjusted gross income of $19,510, which included a net loss of $18,792 from his 2003 Schedule C on line 21 of his Form 1040 that he characterized as an NOL. His negative adjusted gross income of $19,510 should not include the $18,792 but should include the Schedule C loss of $59,343. This would result in a negative adjusted gross income of $60,061.↩
7. The Commissioner disputes that Mr. Chaganti has shown that certain of these expenses were business related.↩
8. The reimbursement statements that are dated 2005 show that Mr. Chaganti requested $16,240. However, there are no underlying documents such as receipts or canceled checks to show that Mr. Chaganti actually paid any expenses.↩
9. For 2006 the Commissioner disallowed the entire $40,000 Mr. Chaganti deducted for other expenses on Schedule C. For 2007 the Commissioner allowed $910 of the $43,535 total other expenses he deducted on Schedule C.↩
10. The Commissioner conceded $529 in travel expenses for 2006 and $507 in travel expenses for 2007.
For various business-related trips, the Court finds that Mr. Chaganti was away from his tax home for a total of 25 days in 2006 and 15 days in 2007.↩
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46. Mr. Chaganti cites
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
Fuller v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 213 F.2d 102 ( 1954 )
Irving Air Chute Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev. , 143 F.2d 256 ( 1944 )
Robert Rosenspan v. United States , 438 F.2d 905 ( 1971 )
Lee E. Daly and Rosemarie H. Daly v. Commissioner of ... , 662 F.2d 253 ( 1981 )
Cohan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 39 F.2d 540 ( 1930 )
neonatology-associates-pa-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-tax-court , 299 F.3d 221 ( 2002 )
Hairline Creations, Inc. v. Diane Kefalas , 664 F.2d 652 ( 1981 )
United States v. Boyle , 105 S. Ct. 687 ( 1985 )
Carlos and Jacqueline Marcello v. Commissioner of Internal ... , 380 F.2d 499 ( 1967 )
Ludwig H. Brandl v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue , 513 F.2d 697 ( 1975 )
Reginald G. Hearn and Mary L. Hearn, Husband and Wife v. ... , 309 F.2d 431 ( 1962 )
charles-oconnell-appelleecross-appellant-v-champion-international , 812 F.2d 393 ( 1987 )
F. M. Williams v. George D. Patterson, District Director of ... , 286 F.2d 333 ( 1961 )
George Harvey James v. United States , 308 F.2d 204 ( 1962 )
Welch v. Helvering , 54 S. Ct. 8 ( 1933 )
Commissioner v. Heininger , 64 S. Ct. 249 ( 1943 )
Tank Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Commissioner , 78 S. Ct. 507 ( 1958 )
Commissioner v. Tellier , 86 S. Ct. 1118 ( 1966 )
United States v. Correll , 88 S. Ct. 445 ( 1967 )