Davenport v. Comm'r

2007 T.C. Memo. 76, 93 T.C.M. 1059, 2007 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 75
United States Tax Court·Decided April 2, 2007·No. No. 23917-05 ·Unpublished

Opinion

STACY N. DAVENPORT, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Davenport v. Comm'r
No. 23917-05
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2007-76; 2007 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 75; 93 T.C.M. (CCH) 1059;
April 2, 2007, Filed
*75 Stacy N. Davenport, pro se.
Carrie L. Kleinjan, for respondent.
Foley, Maurice B.

MAURICE B. FOLEY

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

FOLEY, Judge: By notice of deficiency dated September 19, 2005, respondent determined a deficiency in and additions to petitioner's 2002 Federal income tax. The issues for decision are whether petitioner is liable for unreported income and the section 6654(a)1 and section 6651(a)(1) and (2) additions to tax.

FINDINGS OF FACT

During 2002, petitioner performed services for S. McClain, Inc. (McClain). Between March 29 and September 6, 2002, McClain issued, and sent to petitioner's home, 24 checks payable to DDR Truck Associates (DDR). Those checks totaled $ 63,850. Petitioner deposited those checks into, and paid his salary from, a bank account in the name of*76 DDR over which he had signature authority.

McClain issued petitioner a Form 1099-MISC, Miscellaneous Income, which stated that in 2002 McClain paid petitioner $ 63,850. McClain subsequently issued a corrected Form 1099-MISC to petitioner (i.e., stating that it paid petitioner zero in 2002) and a Form 1099- MISC to DDR (i.e., stating that it paid DDR $ 63,850 in 2002). Petitioner did not file a return, pay tax, or make estimated tax payments relating to 2002.

On August 17, 2005, respondent, pursuant to section 6020(b), prepared a substitute for return (SFR) relating to 2002. On September 19, 2005, respondent sent petitioner a notice of deficiency relating to 2002. Respondent determined that petitioner was liable for a deficiency and additions to tax for failure to file a tax return, pursuant to section 6651(a)(1); timely pay tax, pursuant to section 6651(a)(2); and pay estimated income tax, pursuant to section 6654(a).

On December 19, 2005, petitioner, while residing in Hamburg, Pennsylvania, filed his petition with the Court.

OPINION

Generally, a notice of deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the determination is erroneous. Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115, 54 S. Ct. 8, 78 L. Ed. 212, 1933-2 C.B. 112 (1933).*77 Respondent provided sufficient predicate evidence connecting petitioner to the unreported income. Berkery v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 179, 195 (1988). Thus, the notice of deficiency is presumed correct, and petitioner has the burden of proof. 2

Petitioner contends that the $ 63,850 from McClain is attributable to DDR and that DDR is a separate legal entity from which he received a salary. Conversely, respondent contends that DDR does not exist, and that the $ 63,850 is attributable to petitioner. There is insufficient evidence to establish the existence of DDR. Moreover, when petitioner was questioned at trial about how much of the $ 63,850 he was paid from DDR, he was evasive and responded: "I don't have that information." Petitioner's testimony was not credible. We conclude that he received $ 63,850 for the services he rendered to McClain, and we sustain the deficiencies*78 as determined by respondent.

Respondent also determined additions to tax for failure to file tax returns, pursuant to section 6651(a)(1); timely pay tax, pursuant to section 6651(a)(2); and pay estimated income tax, pursuant to section 6654(a). Respondent, pursuant to section 7491(c)

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

Davenport v. Comm'r, 2007 T.C. Memo. 76, 93 T.C.M. 1059, 2007 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 75 (tax 2007).

2007 T.C. Memo. 76 (Davenport v. Comm'r) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Welch v. Helvering
290 U.S. 111 (Supreme Court, 1933)
Wheeler v. Comm'r
127 T.C. No. 14 (U.S. Tax Court, 2006)
Berkery v. Commissioner
91 T.C. No. 17 (U.S. Tax Court, 1988)