NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
24-P-786
NIKITA ANDREYEVICH KRASILNIKOV
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
This case concerns the Appellate Tax Board's (board)
decision affirming the Commissioner of Revenue's (commissioner)
denial of a request by the appellant, Nikita Andreyevich
Krasilnikov (taxpayer), for an abatement of his 2019 personal
income taxes.
Background. The taxpayer claimed on his 2019 State income
tax return a deduction of $15,515 for alleged theft losses
related to his trade or business. In his testimony before the
board, as it was described in the opinion of the board, and in a
written statement he submitted to the commissioner, the taxpayer
alleged that the motor vehicle from which he conducts his mobile
sauna business was given to a mechanic for repair of a transmission in 2019. He alleged that the mechanic refused to
return the vehicle, and he brought a criminal complaint against
the mechanic, which the record shows was issued and then
ultimately dismissed. At the end of the 2019 tax year, the
taxpayer had not recovered the vehicle.
Although the record does not explain how, the taxpayer did
recover the vehicle in January 2020. He discovered that the
transmission was not repaired, and that the mechanic had done
some further damage to the vehicle. Although they were not in
the record before the board, we note, as does the commissioner,
that an invoice and letter the taxpayer included in the record
appendix from a different mechanic concluded that "whoever
worked on the Vehicle prior to me did a great disservice to its
Owner. In fact, very little work was done, some parts were
missing, and this caused me to have to do additional work."
According to the taxpayer, the amount paid to the
unsatisfactory mechanic was $5,000, and the cost of the repairs
by a different mechanic was $9,515. Adding $1,000 for what is
described by the parties as an insurance deductible for a repair
on a different vehicle, the taxpayer deducted on his 2019 State
income tax return $15,515 from his income for what he
characterized as theft of property related to his trade or
business.
2 On April 8, 2022, the commissioner sent the taxpayer a
Notice of Selection for Audit. It is uncontested that the
taxpayer submitted several Federal tax forms in his response to
the Notice of Selection for Audit. These included his 2019 Form
1040 and Form 4684, on which he listed this same amount as a
deduction related to "[l]osses from casualty or theft."
The notice of audit determination from the Department of
Revenue disallowed the taxpayer's claimed deduction and stated,
"The Schedule Y line 9 deduction will remain disallowed.
Casualty losses are not an allowable deduction for MA purposes."
The taxpayer therefore was assessed an additional $784 of tax
owed, plus penalties and interest. As of the assessment date,
July 18, 2022, the total was $915.31.
On August 16, 2022, the taxpayer filed a memorandum titled
"Requisition to Invalidate Audit Determination." The
commissioner construed the document as a request for abatement
and denied the taxpayer's request on April 28, 2023. The stated
basis for the denial was that "The Taxpayer failed to
substantiate his casualty/theft loss. The Taxpayer has not
demonstrated that the claimed loss deduction was related to his
trade or business." There was no mention of an inadequacy in
his submission to the commissioner with respect to documenting
the costs he incurred.
3 The taxpayer appealed from the denial of his request to the
board on June 27, 2023. Following a hearing where the taxpayer
testified on his own behalf, the board concluded that "[t]he
appellant did not submit to the Commissioner or to the Board any
detail or documentation supporting the denied deduction,
including, but not limited to: receipts, itemized bills, credit
card statements, and insurance documentation. The Board ruled
that the appellant's resuscitation of his interpretation of the
facts did not constitute substantiation. Therefore, the Board
ruled that the appellant failed to substantiate his claim to
business deduction for the tax year at issue, as was his
burden."
Discussion. 1. Supporting documentation. The original
reason provided in the commissioner's Notice of Audit
Determination appears, as the taxpayer argues, to be in error.
The notice concluded that "Casualty losses are not an allowable
deduction for MA purposes." In his brief before us, the
commissioner states, "[S]tate law permits a deduction for theft
losses parallel to the [F]ederal deduction. G. L. c. 62,
§ 2 (d) (1)." The abatement was denied by the commissioner on a
different ground, that "The Taxpayer failed to substantiate his
casualty/theft loss. The Taxpayer has not demonstrated that the
claimed loss deduction was related to his trade or business."
And the board said the taxpayer did not submit to the
4 commissioner or the board, "any detail or documentation
supporting the denied deduction, including, but not limited to:
receipts, itemized bills, credit card statements, and insurance
documentation." The board has articulated an adequate basis for
denial of the deduction.
Before us, though, the taxpayer argues that, as a matter of
fact, he did submit materials, including receipts, to the
commissioner. He has included in his record appendix bills,
checks, and itemized expenses for costs allegedly incurred that
relate to the claimed deduction. In an affidavit attached to a
separate motion by the taxpayer to stay this appeal and remand
to the board or the commissioner for further factual findings,
the taxpayer swears that, "On May 9, 2022, I transmitted to the
Massachusetts DOR, Audit Division, a packet of evidentiary
materials supporting my . . . deduction for the tax year at
issue. Those materials included, among other items, my
[F]ederal income tax return for the relevant year and Form 4684,
valuation notes, receipts, criminal case records, computation
worksheets, and an explanation of the deductions." He attests
that these are the same materials submitted in the record
appendix.
In his brief, the commissioner asserts that the board found
as a fact that the taxpayer had not submitted the necessary
documentary evidence. A motion to stay the appeal and remand
5 for further proceedings filed by the taxpayer may be read to say
that, despite the board saying in its decision that the taxpayer
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to M.A.C. Rule 23.0, as appearing in 97 Mass. App. Ct. 1017 (2020) (formerly known as rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 [2009]), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 23.0 or rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
APPEALS COURT
24-P-786
NIKITA ANDREYEVICH KRASILNIKOV
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 23.0
This case concerns the Appellate Tax Board's (board)
decision affirming the Commissioner of Revenue's (commissioner)
denial of a request by the appellant, Nikita Andreyevich
Krasilnikov (taxpayer), for an abatement of his 2019 personal
income taxes.
Background. The taxpayer claimed on his 2019 State income
tax return a deduction of $15,515 for alleged theft losses
related to his trade or business. In his testimony before the
board, as it was described in the opinion of the board, and in a
written statement he submitted to the commissioner, the taxpayer
alleged that the motor vehicle from which he conducts his mobile
sauna business was given to a mechanic for repair of a transmission in 2019. He alleged that the mechanic refused to
return the vehicle, and he brought a criminal complaint against
the mechanic, which the record shows was issued and then
ultimately dismissed. At the end of the 2019 tax year, the
taxpayer had not recovered the vehicle.
Although the record does not explain how, the taxpayer did
recover the vehicle in January 2020. He discovered that the
transmission was not repaired, and that the mechanic had done
some further damage to the vehicle. Although they were not in
the record before the board, we note, as does the commissioner,
that an invoice and letter the taxpayer included in the record
appendix from a different mechanic concluded that "whoever
worked on the Vehicle prior to me did a great disservice to its
Owner. In fact, very little work was done, some parts were
missing, and this caused me to have to do additional work."
According to the taxpayer, the amount paid to the
unsatisfactory mechanic was $5,000, and the cost of the repairs
by a different mechanic was $9,515. Adding $1,000 for what is
described by the parties as an insurance deductible for a repair
on a different vehicle, the taxpayer deducted on his 2019 State
income tax return $15,515 from his income for what he
characterized as theft of property related to his trade or
business.
2 On April 8, 2022, the commissioner sent the taxpayer a
Notice of Selection for Audit. It is uncontested that the
taxpayer submitted several Federal tax forms in his response to
the Notice of Selection for Audit. These included his 2019 Form
1040 and Form 4684, on which he listed this same amount as a
deduction related to "[l]osses from casualty or theft."
The notice of audit determination from the Department of
Revenue disallowed the taxpayer's claimed deduction and stated,
"The Schedule Y line 9 deduction will remain disallowed.
Casualty losses are not an allowable deduction for MA purposes."
The taxpayer therefore was assessed an additional $784 of tax
owed, plus penalties and interest. As of the assessment date,
July 18, 2022, the total was $915.31.
On August 16, 2022, the taxpayer filed a memorandum titled
"Requisition to Invalidate Audit Determination." The
commissioner construed the document as a request for abatement
and denied the taxpayer's request on April 28, 2023. The stated
basis for the denial was that "The Taxpayer failed to
substantiate his casualty/theft loss. The Taxpayer has not
demonstrated that the claimed loss deduction was related to his
trade or business." There was no mention of an inadequacy in
his submission to the commissioner with respect to documenting
the costs he incurred.
3 The taxpayer appealed from the denial of his request to the
board on June 27, 2023. Following a hearing where the taxpayer
testified on his own behalf, the board concluded that "[t]he
appellant did not submit to the Commissioner or to the Board any
detail or documentation supporting the denied deduction,
including, but not limited to: receipts, itemized bills, credit
card statements, and insurance documentation. The Board ruled
that the appellant's resuscitation of his interpretation of the
facts did not constitute substantiation. Therefore, the Board
ruled that the appellant failed to substantiate his claim to
business deduction for the tax year at issue, as was his
burden."
Discussion. 1. Supporting documentation. The original
reason provided in the commissioner's Notice of Audit
Determination appears, as the taxpayer argues, to be in error.
The notice concluded that "Casualty losses are not an allowable
deduction for MA purposes." In his brief before us, the
commissioner states, "[S]tate law permits a deduction for theft
losses parallel to the [F]ederal deduction. G. L. c. 62,
§ 2 (d) (1)." The abatement was denied by the commissioner on a
different ground, that "The Taxpayer failed to substantiate his
casualty/theft loss. The Taxpayer has not demonstrated that the
claimed loss deduction was related to his trade or business."
And the board said the taxpayer did not submit to the
4 commissioner or the board, "any detail or documentation
supporting the denied deduction, including, but not limited to:
receipts, itemized bills, credit card statements, and insurance
documentation." The board has articulated an adequate basis for
denial of the deduction.
Before us, though, the taxpayer argues that, as a matter of
fact, he did submit materials, including receipts, to the
commissioner. He has included in his record appendix bills,
checks, and itemized expenses for costs allegedly incurred that
relate to the claimed deduction. In an affidavit attached to a
separate motion by the taxpayer to stay this appeal and remand
to the board or the commissioner for further factual findings,
the taxpayer swears that, "On May 9, 2022, I transmitted to the
Massachusetts DOR, Audit Division, a packet of evidentiary
materials supporting my . . . deduction for the tax year at
issue. Those materials included, among other items, my
[F]ederal income tax return for the relevant year and Form 4684,
valuation notes, receipts, criminal case records, computation
worksheets, and an explanation of the deductions." He attests
that these are the same materials submitted in the record
appendix.
In his brief, the commissioner asserts that the board found
as a fact that the taxpayer had not submitted the necessary
documentary evidence. A motion to stay the appeal and remand
5 for further proceedings filed by the taxpayer may be read to say
that, despite the board saying in its decision that the taxpayer
had not submitted these materials, the question was not
litigated below.
We may assume that if that were true, it might be proper to
remand the case for an evidentiary hearing and determination of
the issue. The taxpayer, however, has not provided us with a
transcript of the proceedings before the board, which would
allow us to evaluate whether and, if so, how the issue of what
was submitted to the commissioner arose before, and was
addressed at the hearing by the board. Although we recognize
the taxpayer is pro se, it is, nonetheless, "the appellant's
responsibility to ensure that the record is adequate for
appellate review." Roby v. Superintendent, Mass. Correctional
Inst., Concord, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 410, 412 (2018), quoting
Commonwealth v. Woody, 429 Mass. 95, 97 (1999). Consequently,
because the taxpayer has not shown the finding of fact to be
6 clearly erroneous, we must accept it. The decision of the
Appellate Tax Board is affirmed.1
So ordered.
By the Court (Rubin, Shin & Singh, JJ.2),
Clerk
Entered: July 10, 2026.
1 Given our conclusion, we need not reach the taxpayer's other arguments, including that the Massachusetts tax code is unconstitutionally vague.
2 The panelists are listed in order of seniority.