Lara v. Comm'r

2016 T.C. Memo. 96, 111 T.C.M. 1426, 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 96
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 12, 2016
DocketDocket No. 13455-14
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2016 T.C. Memo. 96 (Lara 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
Lara v. Comm'r, 2016 T.C. Memo. 96, 111 T.C.M. 1426, 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 96 (tax 2016).

Opinion

UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOHNNY LARA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Lara v. Comm'r
Docket No. 13455-14
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2016-96; 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 96; 111 T.C.M. (CCH) 1426;
May 12, 2016, Filed

Decision will be entered for respondent.

*96 Johnny Lara, Pro se.
Paulmikell A. Fabian, Catherine G. Chang, and Mark A. Nelson, for respondent.
ASHFORD, Judge.

ASHFORD
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

ASHFORD, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $1,000 in petitioner's Federal income tax for the 2011 taxable year. The issue for decision is *97 whether petitioner is entitled, for 2011, to the American Opportunity Tax Credit under section 25A.1

FINDINGS OF FACT

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in California at the time the petition was filed with the Court.

In 2011 petitioner was enrolled as a full-time student at the University of Phoenix. He qualified for tax-free educational benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, including the Yellow Ribbon GI Education Enhancement Program,2 and *98 during 2011, the Department of Veterans Affairs paid $11,748 directly to the University*97 of Phoenix on his behalf. Because this amount covered all of his tuition and related educational expenses, petitioner did not incur any student loan debt or receive any scholarships for 2011.

The University*98 of Phoenix issued petitioner a Form 1098-T, Tuition Statement, for 2011, which reflected his student status as at least half-time and the total payment of $11,748 received for qualified tuition and related expenses.

Petitioner provided this form to his tax preparer, Rene Lopez of Lopez R Enterprises, who ultimately prepared and timely filed petitioner's Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2011.

Petitioner's 2011 return reported wages, tips, and other compensation of $3,011, two exemptions (one for himself and the other for his minor son), and Federal income tax withheld of $382. The return also claimed the standard deduction for head of household status, an earned income credit and an additional child tax credit totaling $1,031, and an American Opportunity Tax Credit of *99 $1,000.3*99 The $11,748 paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs directly to the University of Phoenix for petitioner's tuition and related expenses was not reported on the return.

On May 14, 2014, respondent mailed petitioner a notice of deficiency disallowing his claimed $1,000 American Opportunity Tax Credit because "[n]o educational institution reported to us on Form 1098-T, Tuition Statement, that you paid or were billed qualified tuition and related expenses during the taxable year." On June 9, 2014, petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court disputing the disallowance.

OPINION

In general, the Commissioner's determination set forth in a notice of deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving otherwise. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115, 54 S. Ct. 8, 78 L. Ed. 212, 1933-2 C.B. 112 (1933). Tax deductions and credits are a matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving entitlement to any deduction or credit claimed.*100 Segel v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 816, 842 (1987). Petitioner does not contend that the burden of proof should shift to respondent under section 7491(a), nor has he established that the requirements for shifting the burden of proof have been met. Accordingly, the burden of proof remains on petitioner. Seesec. 7491(a)(2).

Section 25A authorizes*100 an American Opportunity Tax Credit4 equal to "(A) 100 percent of so much of the qualified tuition and related expenses paid

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

Related

Steve Pemberton v. Commissioner
2017 T.C. Summary Opinion 91 (U.S. Tax Court, 2017)
Diran Li v. Comm'r
2016 T.C. Summary Opinion 49 (U.S. Tax Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 T.C. Memo. 96, 111 T.C.M. 1426, 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lara-v-commr-tax-2016.