Defrancis v. Comm'r

2013 T.C. Summary Opinion 88, 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 89
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedNovember 6, 2013
DocketDocket No. 24282-11S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2013 T.C. Summary Opinion 88 (Defrancis 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
Defrancis v. Comm'r, 2013 T.C. Summary Opinion 88, 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 89 (tax 2013).

Opinion

CHRISTOPHER DEFRANCIS AND JENNIFER GROSS, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Defrancis v. Comm'r
Docket No. 24282-11S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2013-88; 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 89;
November 6, 2013, Filed

PURSUANT TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTION 7463(b), THIS OPINION MAY NOT BE TREATED AS PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER CASE.

*89

Decision will be entered for respondent as to the deficiency and for petitioners as to the addition to tax under section 6662(a).

Ronald P. Weiss, for petitioners.
Michael R. Fiore and Carlton W. King, for respondent.
PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge.

PANUTHOS
SUMMARY OPINION

PANUTHOS, Chief 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. 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. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated.

In a notice of deficiency dated September 6, 2011, respondent determined a deficiency of $6,730 in petitioners' 2009 Federal income tax and a section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalty of $1,346. The issues for decision are: (1) whether petitioners are entitled to a home mortgage interest deduction in excess of the amount respondent allowed; and (2) whether petitioners are liable for the section 6662(a) *90 accuracy-related penalty.

Background

This case was submitted fully stipulated. The stipulation of facts and the exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioners resided in Massachusetts at the time the petition was filed.

On October 31, 2001, petitioners purchased real property at 41 Maynard Road in Northampton, Massachusetts (Maynard Road property), for $365,000.

On January 1, 2003, petitioners signed a document described as a "mortgage note" (mortgage note), promising to pay Joan Gross, petitioner Jennifer Gross' mother, $427,333 plus interest in return for a mortgage loan. The mortgage note provided that petitioners would pay monthly interest at an annual rate of 4.5%. Petitioners' first monthly interest payment of $1,602.50 was due on February 1, 2003. The full principal amount of the mortgage note was due and payable on January 1, 2033.

On January 1, 2003, petitioners signed another document entitled "Mortgage" (mortgage). This document provided that petitioners are indebted to Joan Gross in the principal sum of $427,333. The document further provides that petitioners "hereby mortgage grant, convey and assign to * * * [Joan Gross] the property with an *91 address of 41 Maynard Road". Petitioners and Joan Gross signed the mortgage document. The document is not notarized or recorded.

On September 8, 2008, petitioners signed a document entitled "Open End Mortgage" with TD Bank, N.A. (TD Bank mortgage). When they applied for the TD Bank mortgage, petitioners did not disclose the existence of their indebtedness to Joan Gross. The $200,000 TD Bank mortgage was secured by the Maynard Road property, and the mortgage was recorded with the Hampshire County Registry of Deeds on September 22, 2008.

During 2009 petitioners paid Joan Gross a total of $19,230. Petitioners treated the expenditure as a payment of home mortgage interest. In 2009 petitioners also paid interest on the TD Bank mortgage of $1,138. Petitioners claimed a home mortgage interest deduction of $20,368 on their 2009 Schedule A, Itemized Deductions.

Respondent selected petitioners' 2009 Federal income tax return for examination. Respondent's agent noted that the home mortgage interest deduction petitioners claimed—$20,368—exceeded the amount reported to respondent on the Form 1098, Mortgage Interest Statement, from TD Bank, N.A. In a notice of deficiency respondent disallowed $19,230 *92 of petitioners' $20,368 claimed home mortgage interest deduction. Respondent asserts that petitioners are not entitled to deduct the $19,230 under section 163(h). The $1,138 of home mortgage interest paid to TD Bank, N.A. and reported on Form 1098 is not in dispute. Respondent also determined an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of $1,346.

DiscussionI. Burden of Proof

The Commissioner's determination in a notice of deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer generally bears the burden of proving that the determination is incorrect. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). The submission of a case fully stipulated does not alter the burden of proof. See Rule 122(b); Borchers v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 82, 91 (1990), aff'd,

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

Related

Welch v. Helvering
290 U.S. 111 (Supreme Court, 1933)
New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering
292 U.S. 435 (Supreme Court, 1934)
Deputy, Administratrix v. Du Pont
308 U.S. 488 (Supreme Court, 1940)
Indopco, Inc. v. Commissioner
503 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Woodward v. United States
208 F.2d 893 (Eighth Circuit, 1953)
Autenreith v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
115 F.2d 856 (Third Circuit, 1940)
Tramontozzi v. D'AMICIS
183 N.E.2d 295 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1962)
HIGBEE v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
116 T.C. No. 28 (U.S. Tax Court, 2001)
Hradesky v. Commissioner
65 T.C. 87 (U.S. Tax Court, 1975)
Linder v. Commissioner
68 T.C. 792 (U.S. Tax Court, 1977)
Borchers v. Commissioner
95 T.C. No. 7 (U.S. Tax Court, 1990)
Moore v. Gerrity Co.
818 N.E.2d 213 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2013 T.C. Summary Opinion 88, 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/defrancis-v-commr-tax-2013.