Berry v. Comm'r

2016 T.C. Summary Opinion 81, 2016 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 83
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedDecember 13, 2016
DocketDocket No. 26479-13S.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2016 T.C. Summary Opinion 81 (Berry v. Comm'r) 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
Berry v. Comm'r, 2016 T.C. Summary Opinion 81, 2016 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 83 (tax 2016).

Opinion

GREGORY MACDONALD BERRY, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Berry v. Comm'r
Docket No. 26479-13S.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2016-81; 2016 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 83;
December 13, 2016, Filed

An appropriate order and decision will be entered.

*83 Gregory MacDonald Berry, Pro se.
Rachael J. Zepeda and Derek S. Pratt, for respondent.
GUY, Special Trial Judge.

GUY
SUMMARY OPINION

GUY, 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.1 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.

Respondent determined a deficiency of $793 in petitioner's Federal income tax for 2008, an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) of $135, and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $76. Petitioner filed a timely petition for redetermination with the Court pursuant to section 6213(a). At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Arizona.

This case is before the Court on respondent's motion for summary judgment, with a supporting declaration, filed pursuant to Rule 121. Petitioner filed a response opposing respondent's motion. Respondent filed a supplement to motion for summary judgment, with a supporting declaration, to which petitioner filed a reply.

Background2

On or about April 13, 2012, petitioner submitted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a Form 1040EZ, Income Tax*84 Return for Single and Joint Filers With No Dependents, for the taxable year 2008. Petitioner reported income of $5,800 on line 1 (wages, salaries, and tips), a personal exemption of $8,950, taxable interest of zero, an earned income credit of $438, and a recovery rebate credit of $400, resulting in an overpayment of $838 for which he claimed a refund. The IRS examined petitioner's tax return and issued a letter to him requesting additional information. Petitioner responded by submitting to the IRS a Schedule C-EZ, Net Profit From Business, indicating that he was self-employed and that he had earned gross receipts of $5,800 in 2008.

Respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency determining that he was liable for self-employment tax of $820 on $5,800 of self-employment income, offset by an earned income credit of $438, leaving a balance due of $382. Respondent disallowed the $400 recovery rebate credit that petitioner had claimed, treating it as a math error under sections 6428(f)(1) and 6213(b)(1).3 Petitioner filed a timely petition for redetermination with the Court asserting that he is entitled to an earned income credit of $438 and a recovery rebate credit of $400.

On March*85 25, 2016, respondent filed a first amendment to answer setting forth an alternative position that petitioner is not entitled to an earned income credit for 2008 because he did not have net earnings from self-employment in 2008.

In response petitioner asserted that the $5,800 that he reported on line 1 of his tax return for 2008 represents the proceeds from a one-time sale of tools and machinery and that those proceeds are not subject to self-employment tax. He also stated that he was not employed by any person or business in 2008.

Respondent maintains, for purposes of his motion for summary judgment, as supplemented, that for the taxable year 2008 petitioner did not earn income subject to self-employment tax, his correct Federal income tax liability is zero, and he is not entitled to an earned income credit or a recovery rebate credit. Finally, respondent concedes that petitioner is not liable for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) or the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) determined in the notice of deficiency.

Discussion

Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be granted with respect to all or any part*86

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

Related

Commissioner v. Groetzinger
480 U.S. 23 (Supreme Court, 1987)
Sarmiento v. United States
678 F.3d 147 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Ryther v. Comm'r
2016 T.C. Memo. 56 (U.S. Tax Court, 2016)
Florida Peach Corp. v. Commissioner
90 T.C. No. 41 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 T.C. Summary Opinion 81, 2016 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berry-v-commr-tax-2016.