Monkichi Ito v. Comm'r

2008 T.C. Summary Opinion 37, 2008 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 40
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedApril 16, 2008
DocketNo. 16129-06S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2008 T.C. Summary Opinion 37 (Monkichi Ito 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
Monkichi Ito v. Comm'r, 2008 T.C. Summary Opinion 37, 2008 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 40 (tax 2008).

Opinion

MARK MONKICHI ITO, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Monkichi Ito v. Comm'r
No. 16129-06S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-37; 2008 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 40;
April 16, 2008, Filed

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

*40
Mark Monkichi Ito, Pro se.
Marion K. Mortensen and David Sorensen, for respondent.
Swift, Stephen J.

STEPHEN J. SWIFT

SWIFT, 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.

Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's 2003 and 2004 individual Federal income taxes in the respective amounts of $ 3,771 and $ 1,366, and penalties under section 6662(a) in the respective amounts of $ 754 and $ 273.

The primary issue for decision is the amount of tip income petitioner received in 2003 and 2004.

All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code for the years in issue.

BACKGROUND

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Utah.

During 2003 and 2004, petitioner was employed as a bartender in the lobby lounge of the Grand America Hotel, in downtown Salt Lake City.

In 2003 and 2004, petitioner received total wages of $ 20,487 and $ 28,850, respectively, for his work at the *41 Grand America Hotel.

In each year, petitioner also received tips from customers he served as a bartender in the lobby lounge of the Grand America Hotel. Petitioner, however, did not keep records of the amount of tip income he received.

The Grand America Hotel reported to respondent and to petitioner that petitioner received in 2003 $ 419 and in 2004 $ 7,214 in tip income, and petitioner reported on his 2003 and 2004 Federal income tax returns as income a total of $ 20,487 and $ 28,850, respectively, which amounts included the above wages petitioner received and the above reported tip income.

During respondent's employment tax audit of the Grand America Hotel and respondent's income tax audit of petitioner, using documented tip income received in 2003 and in 2004 on credit card sales at the food and beverage locations in the Grand America Hotel, applying a discount thereto to calculate tips received on cash sales, calculating an employee per hour tip rate, and considering the number of hours petitioner worked, respondent determined that petitioner had received tip income of $ 21,360 and $ 8,737 in 2003 and 2004, respectively, over and above the income from the Grand America Hotel petitioner *42 reported on his Federal income tax returns. 1

During respondent's income tax audit of petitioner, petitioner did not provide respondent with any records or other credible substantiation of the amount of tip income he received.

DISCUSSION

It is well established that tip income received by a taxpayer constitutes compensation for services rendered and is includable in the taxpayer's gross income for Federal income tax purposes. Catalano v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 8, 13 (1983), affd. without published opinion sub nom. Knoll v. Commissioner, 735 F.2d 1370 (9th Cir. 1984); Way v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-590.

Also, it is well established that a taxpayer is required to maintain records sufficient to allow the taxpayer to accurately report all income, sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs., and in the absence of taxpayer records, respondent is authorized to reconstruct a taxpayer's income using any reasonable method, United States v. Fior D'Italia, Inc., 536 U.S. 238, 243 (2002); Mendelson v. Commissioner, 305 F.2d 519, 521-522 (7th Cir. 1962), *43 affg. T.C. Memo.

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

Related

United States v. Fior D'Italia, Inc.
536 U.S. 238 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Knoll v. C.I.R
735 F.2d 1370 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
Schroeder v. Commissioner
40 T.C. 30 (U.S. Tax Court, 1963)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2008 T.C. Summary Opinion 37, 2008 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monkichi-ito-v-commr-tax-2008.