Margie E. Robertson v. Commissioner
This text of 2004 T.C. Memo. 217 (Margie E. Robertson v. Commissioner) 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.
Opinion
T.C. Memo. 2004-217
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
MARGIE E. ROBERTSON, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 5221-03. Filed September 27, 2004.
Margie E. Robertson, pro se.
Beth A. Nunnink, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
FOLEY, Judge: The issues for decision are whether
petitioner is liable for deficiencies relating to 1999 and 2000.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On September 3, 1997, petitioner lent Mary Moore (Ms. Moore)
$25,000. The parties executed a deed of trust and note (the
note) secured by a home in Carbondale, Illinois (the property). - 2 -
Principal and accrued interest were payable upon the transfer of
the property or death of Ms. Moore, whichever came first. In
1998, Ms. Moore died. Petitioner, on her 1999 Federal income tax
return, reported a $25,000 loss.
From 1992 to 2000, petitioner was employed by the City of
Seattle (the City) as a license and standards inspector. During
this period she had a digestive disorder. Although petitioner
could not eat during work hours, her digestive disorder imposed
no other physical limitations on her ability to work. In 1999,
petitioner requested to have her schedule modified from a 10 1/2-
hour workday (i.e., with a 1/2-hour lunch break) to a 10-hour
workday without a lunch break. The City denied petitioner’s
request. In response, on August 1, 2000, petitioner resigned.
After petitioner resigned, the City granted her request, but she
did not accept their accommodation.
In 2000, petitioner received a $46,996 Individual Retirement
Account (IRA) distribution. Petitioner reported the distribution
on her 2000 Federal income tax return and paid income tax
relating to the gross amount but did not pay the 10-percent
additional tax pursuant to section 72(t)(1).
By notice of deficiency dated December 31, 2002, respondent
determined deficiencies of $4,382 and $4,700 relating to 1999 and
2000, respectively. On April 4, 2003, petitioner, while residing
in Memphis, Tennessee, filed her petition with this Court. - 3 -
OPINION
At the outset, we note that petitioner failed to cooperate
with respondent and as a result, has the burden of proof. Sec.
7491(a)(2)(B); Rule 142(a).1 Petitioner contends that she is
entitled to a section 166 bad debt deduction relating to the
note. She also contends that in 1998, the first lien holder
attempted to foreclose on the property, and that she attempted to
collect on the note in that year. The note is a bona fide debt
and became due in 1998 when Ms. Moore died. Petitioner, however,
claimed a deduction for the unpaid debt on her 1999 tax return.
Even though the note was due in 1998, petitioner failed to
establish when the debt became worthless. Aston v. Commissioner,
109 T.C. 400 (1997); sec. 1.166-5(a)(2), Income Tax Regs.
Accordingly, she is not entitled to a deduction.
Petitioner contends that the 10-percent additional tax,
pursuant to section 72(t)(1), is inapplicable, because she
qualifies for the disability exception pursuant to section
72(t)(2). She, however, failed to establish that she was “unable
to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any
medically determinable physical or mental impairment”. Sec.
72(m)(7). Although petitioner had a digestive disorder and was
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. - 4 -
required to refrain from eating during work hours, she was able
to engage in “substantial gainful activity”. Sec. 72(m)(7);
Dwyer v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 337, 341 (1996).
Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determinations.
Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or
meritless.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2004 T.C. Memo. 217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margie-e-robertson-v-commissioner-tax-2004.