PRIDE v. COMMISSIONER

2003 T.C. Summary Opinion 82, 2003 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 81
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJune 19, 2003
DocketNo. 13105-02S
StatusUnpublished

This text of 2003 T.C. Summary Opinion 82 (PRIDE 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.

Bluebook
PRIDE v. COMMISSIONER, 2003 T.C. Summary Opinion 82, 2003 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 81 (tax 2003).

Opinion

THOMAS C. PRIDE, SR., Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
PRIDE v. COMMISSIONER
No. 13105-02S
United States Tax Court
T.C. Summary Opinion 2003-82; 2003 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 81;
June 19, 2003, Filed

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

Thomas C. Pride, pro se.
Edwina L. Jones, for respondent.
Dinan, Daniel J.

Dinan, Daniel J.

DINAN, 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. The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion should not be cited as authority. 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 in petitioner's Federal income tax of $ 405.11 for the taxable year 1999.

The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is entitled to various itemized deductions disallowed by respondent, and (2) whether petitioner received unreported interest income.

Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of fact and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided*82 in Charlotte, North Carolina, on the date the petition was filed in this case.

On petitioner's Federal income tax return for taxable year 1999, petitioner reported adjusted gross income of $ 40,414 and claimed total itemized deductions of $ 15,294. In the statutory notice of deficiency, respondent disallowed the following portions of the itemized deductions claimed by petitioner on his return:

                Claimed     Disallowed

Mortgage interest        $ 6,717      $ 1,023

Charitable contributions      3,524        250

Employee business expenses     1,423       1,423

The employee business expense deduction claimed on the return is for expenses of $ 2,231 reduced pursuant to the section 67(a) limitation on miscellaneous itemized deductions. Respondent also determined that petitioner received unreported interest income of $ 13.

A taxpayer generally must keep records sufficient to establish the amounts of the items reported on his Federal income tax return. Sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), (e), Income Tax Regs. In the event that a taxpayer establishes that a deductible expense has been*83 paid but is unable to substantiate the precise amount, we generally may estimate the amount of the deductible expense bearing heavily against the taxpayer whose inexactitude in substantiating the amount of the expense is of his own making. Cohan v. Commissioner, 39 F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930). We cannot estimate a deductible expense, however, unless the taxpayer presents evidence sufficient to provide some basis upon which an estimate may be made. Vanicek v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 731, 743 (1985).//1

The first deduction in dispute is the deduction for mortgage interest. Mortgage interest generally is deductible under section 163(a), subject to the requirements of section 163(h). Petitioner argues that the $ 1,023 disallowed by respondent represents interest he paid on a second mortgage. Petitioner, however, was unable to provide any substantiation for this second mortgage or for the alleged payments made with respect thereto. While we accept petitioner's testimony that at some point in time he obtained a second mortgage on his residence, petitioner's uncorroborated testimony was insufficient to substantiate the existence of, or payments on, a second mortgage*84 during 1999. We sustain respondent's disallowance of the relevant portion of the mortgage interest deduction. Sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), (e), Income Tax Regs.

The second deduction in dispute is the deduction for charitable contributions.

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

Related

Cohan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
39 F.2d 540 (Second Circuit, 1930)
Barone v. Commissioner
85 T.C. No. 26 (U.S. Tax Court, 1985)
Vanicek v. Commissioner
85 T.C. No. 43 (U.S. Tax Court, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2003 T.C. Summary Opinion 82, 2003 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pride-v-commissioner-tax-2003.