Terrell v. Comm'r

2016 T.C. Memo. 85, 111 T.C.M. 1387, 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 82
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedMay 2, 2016
DocketDocket No. 21136-14.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2016 T.C. Memo. 85 (Terrell 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
Terrell v. Comm'r, 2016 T.C. Memo. 85, 111 T.C.M. 1387, 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 82 (tax 2016).

Opinion

ANGELA A. TERRELL, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Terrell v. Comm'r
Docket No. 21136-14.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 2016-85; 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 82; 111 T.C.M. (CCH) 1387;
May 2, 2016, Filed

Decision will be entered under Rule 155*82 .

Angela A. Terrell, Pro se.
William J. Gregg, for respondent.
LAUBER, Judge.

LAUBER
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

LAUBER, Judge: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS or respondent) determined a deficiency in petitioner's 2011 Federal income tax of $5,202 and an accuracy-related penalty of $1,340 pursuant to section 6662(a).1 After concessions,2*83 the sole issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to an education credit for 2011. We hold that she is.

FINDINGS OF FACT

During 2011 petitioner was enrolled as a full-time student at Hampton University in Hampton, Virginia. Sometime during fall 2010 she registered for courses for the upcoming spring 2011 semester. On November 23, 2010, the university billed to her account tuition of $2,460 on the basis of her preliminary selection of spring 2011 semester courses. On January 10, 2011, the university billed to her account additional tuition of $1,230 on the basis of her final course selections for that semester.

Petitioner financed her education largely with student loans. Although the university billed tuition charges to her account as set forth in the previous paragraph, her student loans were not disbursed until January 20, 2011, after the period for students to add or drop courses had ended and after course schedules were finalized. Loan proceeds of $10,199 were disbursed directly to the university, which credited petitioner's account with that sum. Loan proceeds in excess of tuition and related fees were refunded to petitioner, who used the excess to pay her living expenses during the spring 2011 semester.

The university filed*84 with the IRS and sent to petitioner a Form 1098-T, Tuition Statement, for 2011. This Form had no entry in box 1, captioned "Payments received for qualified tuition and related expenses." It showed an entry of $1,180 in box 2, captioned "Amounts billed for qualified tuition and related expenses." This sum corresponds to the tuition of $1,230 billed to petitioner's account on January 10, 2011, plus mandatory fees of $50, minus a tuition credit of $100 ($1,230 + $50 - $100 = $1,180).

Petitioner, a cash basis taxpayer, timely filed Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 2011. On this return she claimed an American Opportunity Credit of $2,500. She claimed $1,500 of this credit on line 48 as an education credit against the regular tax. She claimed the $1,000 balance on line 66 as a refundable credit and thus as a "payment."

On June 2, 2014, the IRS sent petitioner a timely notice of deficiency, which took the form of a Notice CP3219A. This notice disallowed petitioner's claimed education credit in its entirety, stating: "Your eligible educational institution did not verify the amount claimed on your tax return, in box 1 of Form 1098-T, Tuition Statement. Please provide a signed*85 explanation of the amounts paid to support the amount(s) claimed." The notice stated no other basis for disallowing the claimed education credit. Petitioner, a resident of Virginia, filed a timely petition for redetermination in this Court.

OPINIONA. Burden of Proof

The Commissioner's determinations in a notice of deficiency are generally presumed correct. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115, 54 S. Ct. 8, 78 L. Ed. 212, 1933-2 C.B. 112 (1933). The taxpayer must establish her entitlement to credits allowed by the Code and substantiate the amounts of claimed credits. LaPoint v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 733 (1990); sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs. Because we decide this case on the preponderance of the evidence, we need not decide which party has the burden of proof. See Knudsen v. Commissioner, 131 T.C. 185, 189 (2008).

B. Education Credits

The Code allows a variety of education credits, including the American Opportunity Credit, a modified version of the Hope Scholarship Credit that was in effect for tax year 2011. See sec. 25A(i).

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

Related

Constant B. Bidzimou v. Commissioner
2020 T.C. Memo. 85 (U.S. Tax Court, 2020)
Cook v. Comm'r
2016 T.C. Summary Opinion 36 (U.S. Tax Court, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2016 T.C. Memo. 85, 111 T.C.M. 1387, 2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terrell-v-commr-tax-2016.