Marshall v. Comm'r

2008 T.C. Summary Opinion 31, 2008 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 33
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMarch 26, 2008
DocketNo. 19428-06S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2008 T.C. Summary Opinion 31 (Marshall 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
Marshall v. Comm'r, 2008 T.C. Summary Opinion 31, 2008 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 33 (tax 2008).

Opinion

JOSEPH LEE MARSHALL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Marshall v. Comm'r
No. 19428-06S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-31; 2008 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 33;
March 26, 2008, Filed

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

*33
Joseph Lee Marshall, Pro se.
Richard F. Stein, for respondent.
Goldberg, Stanley J.

STANLEY J. GOLDBERG

GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect at the time 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. Unless otherwise indicated, subsequent 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.

Respondent determined a deficiency of $ 6,063 in petitioner's 2005 Federal income tax. The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to dependency exemption deductions for two children; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to a child tax credit; (3) whether petitioner qualifies for head of household filing status; and (4) whether petitioner is entitled to an earned income credit.

BACKGROUND

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. At the *34 time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Baltimore, Maryland.

From November 2004 through July 2005, petitioner lived in a row house in Baltimore, Maryland, with his mother Ernestine Marshall (Ms. Marshall), his girlfriend Eunice Briscoe (Ms. Briscoe), and Ms. Briscoe's two minor children, FA and AA. 1 Petitioner is not related to FA or AA by blood or marriage and had not adopted FA or AA. FA and AA's biological father did not provide any support for the children. The row house was owned by Ms. Marshall. Neither petitioner nor Ms. Briscoe paid rent while they lived in Ms. Marshall's home; however, petitioner and Ms. Briscoe both contributed funds for food and utility costs. Petitioner paid Ms. Marshall approximately $ 250 to $ 300 a month for "room and board" while residing in her home.

In August 2005, petitioner, Ms. Briscoe, FA, and AA moved into an apartment in Baltimore, Maryland. Petitioner lived in the apartment with Ms. Briscoe, FA, and AA through the end of 2005. The rent for the apartment was $ 675 a month. Initially, petitioner and Ms. Briscoe each paid approximately one-half the rent. However, from October *35 through December 2005, petitioner paid all of the rent. Additionally, petitioner paid for utilities amounting to approximately $ 110 to $ 170 per month.

In 2005, petitioner received $ 21,040 in wages from his work as a fork lift operator. Petitioner's mother was retired and receiving Social Security benefits. Ms. Briscoe was employed at Popeye's Chicken and Biscuits Restaurant until June 2005, 2 when she began working at Sinai Hospital. Ms. Briscoe earned $ 600-$ 700 biweekly while employed at Sinai Hospital. Ms. Briscoe ended her employment at the hospital in September 2005. 3

Petitioner timely filed his 2005 Federal income tax return as a head of household. He also claimed dependency exemption deductions for the two children, child tax credits, and an earned income credit with respect to FA and AA. Petitioner listed the two children as his son and daughter on his 2005 Federal income tax return.

Respondent issued petitioner a notice of deficiency in *36 July 2006, denying the claimed deductions and credits and changing petitioner's filing status to single. Petitioner filed a timely petition for redetermination.

DISCUSSION

In general, the Commissioner's determination set forth in a notice of deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of showing that the determination is in error. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Deductions and credits are a matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving entitlement to any deduction or credit claimed on a return. INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Wilson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-139.

Pursuant to section 7491(a), the burden of proof as to factual matters shifts to the Commissioner under certain circumstances.

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)
Indopco, Inc. v. Commissioner
503 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court, 1992)
Blanco v. Commissioner
56 T.C. 512 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2008 T.C. Summary Opinion 31, 2008 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marshall-v-commr-tax-2008.