Home/U.S. Tax Court/Harris v. Commissioner

Harris v. Commissioner

1977 T.C. Memo. 417, 36 T.C.M. 1695, 1977 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 23
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Harris v. Commissioner. Read the opinion of the Court — 34 T.C.M. 597 →
United States Tax Court·Decided December 6, 1977·No. Docket No. 8807-74·Unpublished

Opinion

CLIFTON E. and ANN K. HARRIS, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Harris v. Commissioner
Docket No. 8807-74
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1977-417; 1977 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 23; 36 T.C.M. (CCH) 1695; T.C.M. (RIA) 770417;
December 6, 1977, Filed
*23 Clifton E. Harris, pro se.
John B. Pohl, for the respondent.
WILBUR

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

WILBUR, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal income taxes as follows:

YearDeficiency
1968$9,952.10
19695,230.25

These deficiencies were based upon respondent's conclusion that petitioners had not substantiated certain expenditures for which they had taken deductions on their 1968 and 1969 Federal income tax returns, and upon respondent's conclusion that they failed to report all of their gross income in 1968. The sole issue 1 for our determination is whether petitioners have carried their burden of proving respondent's determination with respect to income or deductions to be, in whole or part, incorrect.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Petitioners*24 are Clifton E. Harris and Ann K. Harris, husband and wife, who resided in Pineville, Louisiana, at the time the petition was filed herein.

Petitioner 2 is a physician practicing medicine in Pineville, Louisiana who also owns rental property from which he reported income and claimed deductions.

In a statutory notice of deficiency respondent made the following adjustments to items of income and deductions reported by petitioner and his wife on their timely, 1968 and 1969 Federal income tax returns:

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

19681969
Depreciation
Claimed$ 13,361.30$ 12,868.10
Allowed6,951.576,430.78
Adjustment6,409.576,437.32
Gross Receipts
As Corrected94,496.61
Reported83,667.61
Adjustment10,829.00
Office Supplies
Claimed4,785.332,764.82
Allowed2,789.581,865.45
Adjustment1,995.75899.37
Donations
Claimed$ 3,545.87 $
Allowed-0-
Adjustment3,545.87
Insurance
Claimed816.77
Allowed290.77
Adjustment526.77
Interest
Claimed1,999.60
Allowed1,638.94
Adjustment360.66
Auto Expense
Claimed4,034.99
Allowed2,200.00
Adjustment1,834.99
Repairs
Claimed$ 4,153.71
Allowed1,534.26
Adjustment2,619.45
Utilities
Claimed3,289.45
Allowed2,856.45
Adjustment433.00
Medical Supplies
Claimed9,725.27
Allowed9,406.28
Adjustment
YearDeficiency
1968$9,952.10
19695,230.25

These deficiencies were based upon respondent's conclusion that petitioners had not substantiated certain expenditures for which they had taken deductions on their 1968 and 1969 Federal income tax returns, and upon respondent's conclusion that they failed to report all of their gross income in 1968. The sole issue 1 for our determination is whether petitioners have carried their burden of proving respondent's determination with respect to income or deductions to be, in whole or part, incorrect.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Petitioners*24 are Clifton E. Harris and Ann K. Harris, husband and wife, who resided in Pineville, Louisiana, at the time the petition was filed herein.

Petitioner 2 is a physician practicing medicine in Pineville, Louisiana who also owns rental property from which he reported income and claimed deductions.

In a statutory notice of deficiency respondent made the following adjustments to items of income and deductions reported by petitioner and his wife on their timely, 1968 and 1969 Federal income tax returns:

19681969
Depreciation
Claimed$ 13,361.30$ 12,868.10
Allowed6,951.576,430.78
Adjustment6,409.576,437.32
Gross Receipts
As Corrected94,496.61
Reported83,667.61
Adjustment10,829.00
Office Supplies
Claimed4,785.332,764.82
Allowed2,789.581,865.45
Adjustment1,995.75899.37
Donations
Claimed$ 3,545.87 $
Allowed-0-
Adjustment3,545.87
Insurance
Claimed816.77
Allowed290.77
Adjustment526.77
Interest
Claimed1,999.60
Allowed1,638.94
Adjustment360.66
Auto Expense
Claimed4,034.99
Allowed2,200.00
Adjustment1,834.99
Repairs
Claimed$ 4,153.71
Allowed1,534.26
Adjustment2,619.45
Utilities
Claimed3,289.45
Allowed2,856.45
Adjustment433.00
Medical Supplies
Claimed9,725.27
Allowed9,406.28
Adjustment318.89
Insurance (Rental Property)
Claimed606.64
Allowed449.64
Adjustment157.00
TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS$ 25,502.77$ 10,862.03

*25 OPINION

Respondent's determination in a statutory notice of deficiency is presumptively correct so that the burden of proof with respect to such items is on the petitioner. Welch v. Helvering,290 U.S. 111 (1933), Rule 142(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Petitioner was given ample opportunity at trial to present whatever evidence he had to substantiate a lesser deficiency and the record was kept open for 30 days after trial to enable him to submit whatever relevant documentation he had, but petitioner failed to present, either by documents or through oral testimony, any evidence to rebut respondent's determination.

Petitioner explained that no accurate records exist for the taxable years in question because of the physical and psychological strain he endured during this period. While we sympathize with the problems and pressures which he faced, this Court does not possess a general equity power to permit us to give relief upon such a basis. See Hays Corp. v. Commissioner,40 T.C. 436, 442-43 (1963), affd. 331 F.2d 422 (7th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 842 (1964), and cases cited therein. 3*26

We must therefore sustain the deficiency as determined by respondent in the statutory notice of deficiency.

Decision will be entered for the respondent.

Footnotes

  • 1. Although the deficiency notice was mailed in August 1974, more than 3 years after the filing of the tax returns herein, petitioners have filed a consent to the extention of the statute of limitations. Furthermore they have not relied on the statute of limitations either in their pleadings or in court. See Rule 39, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩

  • 2. Since petitioner Ann K. Harris is a party to this proceeding only by reason of having filed a joint return with her husband, Clifton E. Harris will be hereinafter referred to as petitioner.↩

  • 3. Cf. Egan v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 1976-351↩.

Harris v. Commissioner, 1977 T.C. Memo. 417, 36 T.C.M. 1695, 1977 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 23 (tax 1977).

1977 T.C. Memo. 417 (Harris v. Commissioner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Welch v. Helvering
290 U.S. 111 (Supreme Court, 1933)
The Hays Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
331 F.2d 422 (Seventh Circuit, 1964)
Hays Corp. v. Commissioner
40 T.C. 436 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)