Worthington v. Commissioner
This text of 1999 T.C. Memo. 113 (Worthington 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
*130 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
*131 [1] WOLFE, SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE: This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and 182. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the tax years in issue, unless otherwise indicated. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
[2] Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' 1994 and 1995 Federal income taxes in the amounts of $ 990 and $ 473, respectively, and accuracy-related penalties under
[3] After concession by both parties, 1 the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioners are entitled to claimed bad debt deductions under
[4] Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioners resided in Baldwin, Michigan, when the petition in this case was filed. All references to petitioner are to Clair Worthington.
[5] During the years in issue, petitioner operated a heating and plumbing service. On their 1994 and 1995 Federal income tax *133 returns, petitioners claimed business bad debt deductions in the amounts of $ 1,342 and $ 2,850, respectively. In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioners are not entitled to the bad debt deductions because the revenue corresponding to such claimed deductions never was included in petitioners' income.
[6] Petitioners received interest income from First Union National Bank of Florida in 1994 in the amount of $ 794. In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that petitioners had not included this income on their 1994 Federal income tax return.
[7] Petitioners contend that both the interest income and the income that the bad debt deductions represent were included in the amount set forth on the gross receipts line of the Schedules C attached to their 1994 and 1995 Federal income tax returns. Petitioners' 1994 and 1995 Federal income tax returns were prepared by a tax preparation firm that used worksheets to prepare those tax returns. Petitioners destroyed these worksheets after their 1994 and 1995 Federal income tax returns were filed.
[8]
[9] At trial, petitioners submitted various stopped checks and work orders and claimed that these items substantiate their claimed bad debt deductions. Contrary to petitioners' assertions, these documents do not demonstrate that the income which gave rise to these items was in fact included in their gross income. Although petitioner was a well-spoken witness, he has not furnished any documentation that would corroborate his position. In the present case, we cannot rely upon petitioner's self-serving, uncorroborated testimony. See
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1999 T.C. Memo. 113, 77 T.C.M. 1759, 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worthington-v-commissioner-tax-1999.