Romak v. Commissioner
This text of 1972 T.C. Memo. 116 (Romak 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
*140 Held: Petitioners' various claims for deduction disallowed.
Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion
IRWIN, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $918.32 in petitioners' income tax for calendar year 1968. Respondent has conceded $345.21 of the deficiency because this amount represents an overstatement of a credit for excess F.I.C.A. tax which respondent had assessed previously against petitioner. We are left to determine whether respondent correctly disallowed certain deductions taken by petitioner.
Findings of Fact
Petitioner are Theodore A. Romak and Virginia P. Romak, husband and wife, who at all relevant times resided in Romulus, Mich. 463
The joint income tax return of petitioners reflected the following items:
| Adjustment - Employee business ex- pense | $2,619.53 |
| Deduction - State and local income tax | 560.00 |
| Credit - Excess F.I.C.A. tax withheld | 345.21 |
| Casualty loss | 1,225.00 |
| Casualty loss | 327.00 |
The petitioners received a notice dated March 14, 1969, from the internal revenue service center, Cincinnati, Ohio, which corrected certain mathematical errors*142 on petitioners' return and which reduced the refund owed petitioners by disallowing the $345.21 claimed excess F.I.C.A. tax credit.
On October 2, 1970, respondent mailed to petitioners a "short form" statutory notice. In his answer respondent asserted that the following items were disallowed:
| Item | Amount |
| Employee business expense (Federal income tax and F.I.C.A. tax) | $2,619.53 |
| State and local income tax | 253.30 |
| Casualty loss | 100.00 |
| Casualty loss | 100.00 |
| Excess F.I.C.A. tax credit | 343.20 |
Opinion
After respondent's concession of $345.21 of the deficiency as having already been assessed, we are left to determine the propriety of petitioners' deduction of items disallowed by respondent. 1
Petitioners' deduction for employee business expenses represented the amounts withheld from Romak's wages for Federal income taxes and F.I.C.A. tax. These taxes are clearly not deductible by virtue of section 275, 2 and we sustain respondent's disallowance.
*143 The evidence that petitioners presented to us indicated that they paid $306.70 in state and local income taxes in 1968 rather than the $560 reported on their return. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's disallowance of deduction of $253.30 of these taxes.
Petitioners presented no evidence concerning the two claimed casualty losses. We have no basis for disputing respondent's reduction of the amounts claimed by the $100 deductible provided in section 165(c) (3). Therefore, we sustain respondent's reduction of each loss by $100.
Petitioners claim that respondent checked their tax for 1968 once in the notice of adjustment dated March 14, 1969, and that he could, therefore, not redetermine the tax at a later time. Respondent has gone to some length in his brief to refute every theory under which petitioners might be arguing. For our purposes it suffices to say that the notice of adjustment does not constitute a final audit or closing agreement and that it does not provide any basis for petitioners to complain under section 6212(c) or section 7605(b) or for a claim of estoppel or res adjudicata in this Court.
Petitioners' claim has no merit.
Decision will be entered under Rule*144 50.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1972 T.C. Memo. 116, 31 T.C.M. 462, 1972 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romak-v-commissioner-tax-1972.