Barber v. Commissioner

1997 T.C. Memo. 206, 73 T.C.M. 2706, 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 5, 1997
DocketDocket No. 12617-95
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1997 T.C. Memo. 206 (Barber v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barber v. Commissioner, 1997 T.C. Memo. 206, 73 T.C.M. 2706, 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237 (tax 1997).

Opinion

JANE C. BARBER, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Barber v. Commissioner
Docket No. 12617-95
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1997-206; 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237; 73 T.C.M. (CCH) 2706;
May 5, 1997, Filed

*237 Decision will be entered for respondent.

Jane C. Barber, pro se.
James M. Guiry, for respondent.
WELLS

WELLS

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

WELLS, Judge: Respondent determined the following deficiency in, and additions to, petitioner's 1992 Federal income tax:

Additions to Tax
DeficiencySec. 6651(a)Sec. 6654(a)
$ 14,504$ 3,626$ 631.77

By amendment to her answer, respondent asserted the following increased amounts*238 of deficiency and additions to tax for that year:

Additions to Tax
DeficiencySec. 6651(a)Sec. 6654(a)
$ 28,015$ 5,185$ 786

For the year in issue, petitioner has stipulated the amounts of income, gain, deduction, loss, and credit properly reportable by her and concedes her liability for the addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax. Accordingly, the only issue remaining to be decided is whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax for failure to file timely provided by section 6651(a). 1

FINDINGS OF FACT

Certain facts and the exhibits have been stipulated for trial pursuant to Rule 91. The parties' stipulations of fact are incorporated herein by reference and are found as facts in the instant case. At the time the petition in the instant case was filed, petitioner resided in Queensbury, *239 New York.

During 1992, petitioner was married to Robert Barber. They had three sons. At that time, Mr. Barber was the developer of a waste energy project and had contracts with certain counties. Allegations of fraud with respect to those contracts were made, and Mr. Barber was arrested on misdemeanor charges during early 1992. In connection with the investigation of those allegations, during August 1992, a search pursuant to a warrant was conducted of the offices of Mr. Barber, Mr. Barber's and petitioner's attorney, and their accountant. Records were taken by the district attorney who conducted the search, but petitioner did not receive an inventory of the items taken. Mr. Barber was arrested on felony charges during December 1992. Mr. Barber, however, was not incarcerated as a consequence of his arrests. Mr. Barber was tried twice, first during March 1993 on the misdemeanor charges and subsequently during March and April 1994 on the felony charges. Both trials resulted in acquittals.

Petitioner suffered emotional trauma as a result of Mr. Barber's arrests, his trials, and the attendant publicity; however, she continued to function normally in caring for her sons and household, *240 doing what she felt she had to do. Moreover, petitioner was not hospitalized as a result of her trauma. During that time, Mr. Barber also tried to continue his business, which was adversely affected by the charges laid against him. Mr. Barber, and his company did not file for bankruptcy and the business subsequently recovered.

During 1993, Forms W-2 reporting information concerning wages earned during 1992 were received by petitioner, as well as information reports of interest and pension and annuity income, which were turned over to petitioner's and Mr. Barber's accountant. Petitioner also had discussions with their accountant concerning the things she had to do. During 1993, however, petitioner put aside matters connected with the preparation of her 1992 return because of the problems facing Mr. Barber.

After the end of the second trial in April 1994, petitioner and Mr. Barber were able to begin reclaiming the documents that had been taken in the August 1992 search. Petitioner turned over to their accountant the records relating to their affairs. At least by late 1994, petitioner had obtained the documents necessary to prepare a 1992 Federal income tax return.

Neither petitioner*241 nor Mr. Barber requested an extension of time to file a Federal income tax return for 1992. Petitioner did not timely file a Federal income tax return for her 1992 taxable year. On November 22, 1995, over 7 months after the issuance of the notice of deficiency in issue in the instant case, petitioner and Mr. Barber submitted to respondent a joint Federal income tax return for their 1992 taxable year. Among the items of income properly reportable by petitioner for her 1992 taxable year are: Wages of $ 59,484, pension and annuity income of $ 18,696, short-term capital gain of $ 57,012, and long-term capital gain from the sale of a building of $ 121,556.

OPINION

The only issue remaining for decision is whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax provided by section 6651(a) for failure to file timely. Petitioner concedes that she did not file timely a Federal income tax return for her 1992 taxable year. As petitioner did not obtain an extension of time for filing, that return was due on or before April 15, 1993. Sec. 6072(a).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stine v. United States
106 Fed. Cl. 586 (Federal Claims, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1997 T.C. Memo. 206, 73 T.C.M. 2706, 1997 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-v-commissioner-tax-1997.