1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 457">*457 Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 457">*458 MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
PARR, JUDGE: By notices 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 457">*459 of deficiency, respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to petitioner Ronald L. Bodwell's Federal income taxes for the years 1982 through 1994 as follows:
Ronald L. Bodwell (Petitioner)
______________________________
Additions to tax
________________
Year Deficiency
____ __________ _______________ _________
1982 $ 21,266 $ 5,121.75 $ 1,988.90
1983 22,430 5,607.50 1,372.55
1984 23,986 5,996.50 1,508.01
1985 24,944 6,236.00 1,429.38
1986 26,371 6,592.75 1,275.91
1987 24,040 6,010.00 1,290.49
1988 22,607 5,651.75 1,454.16
1989 23,598 5,899.50 1,595.89
1990 24,599 6,149.75 1,610.56
1991 25,633 6,408.25 1,464.94
1992 26,934 6,733.50 1,174.72
1993 28,229 7,057.25 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 457">*460 1,182.78
1994 29,680 7,420.00 1,540.15
By separate notices of deficiency, respondent determined deficiencies in and additions to the Federal income taxes due from the estate of Betty Bodwell for the years 1982 through 1994 as follows:
Betty Bodwell (Mrs. Bodwell)
_____________________________
Additions to tax
________________
Year Deficiency
____ __________ _______________ _________
1982 $ 6,224 $ 1,556.00 $ 605.94
1983 6,637 1,659.25 406.14
1984 6,929 1,732.25 435.65
1985 7,115 1,778.75 407.74
1986 7,444 1,861.00 360.19
1987 6,651 1,662.75 357.03
1988 6,137 1,534.25 394.75
1989 6,353 1,588.25 429.63
1990 6,606 1,651.50 432.50
1991 6,925 1,731.25 395.79
1992 7,298 1,824.50 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 457">*461 318.30
1993 7,647 1,911.75 320.41
1994 6,007 1,201.40 311.67
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated. References to petitioners include both Mr. and Mrs. Bodwell. 1
After concessions, 2 the issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioners had unreported income from painting services for the taxable years 1989 through 1994. We hold they did. (2) Whether petitioner incurred self-employment tax for the taxable years 1989 through 1994. We hold he did. (3) Whether petitioners are liable for additions1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 457">*462 to tax under
1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 457">*463 FINDINGS OF FACT
During 1989 through 1994, petitioner was engaged in business as a painting contractor, painting new and existing gasoline service stations. He did business under the name PAINT-SER LTD., and he performed the painting services himself. During the years 1989 through 1994, petitioner, d.b.a. PAINT-SER LTD., performed painting services for Shell Oil Co. (Shell), for which Shell paid him, as follows:
Year Amount
____ ______
1989 $ 51,619.64
1990 84,832.88
1991 35,919.48
1992 63,163.81
1993 64,645.53
1994 46,162.61
During the years 1990 through 1994, petitioner, d.b.a. PAINT-SER LTD., performed painting services for Town and Country Contractors, Inc. (Town and Country), for which Town and Country paid him, as follows:
Year Amount
____ ______
1990 $ 27,807.20
1991 49,442.09
1992 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 457">*464 17,821.04
1993 1 230.64
1994 8,091.17
During the years 1989 through 1994, petitioner and Mrs. Bodwell resided in the State of California. They did not file income tax returns for the years 1989 through 1994. During these years, Mrs. Bodwell did not exercise any management or control over petitioner's business.
OPINION
ISSUE 1. UNREPORTED INCOME FROM PAINTING SERVICES
By order dated March 4, 1998, we ruled that respondent's determinations of petitioners' income were arbitrary because respondent had not offered any evidence or other basis to support the determination that petitioners1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 457">*465 received income. Thus, we held that respondent may not rely on the presumption that the determination is correct. See
Respondent presented evidence at trial that petitioner, d.b.a. PAINT-SER LTD., performed painting services during the years 1989 through 1994 for Shell and Town and Country.
The manager of Federal income tax audits at Shell, Bruce Charles Fay (Mr. Fay), stated that petitioner's tax identification number (TIN) was associated with two vendor accounts at Shell. In addition, he provided extracts from Shell's accounting system which clearly displayed petitioner's TIN beside these two vendor accounts. Further, these extracts showed that Shell paid the following amounts to petitioner for painting services: $ 51,619.64 in 1989, $ 84,832.88 in 1990, $ 35,919.48 in 1991, $ 63,163.81 in 1992, $ 64,645.531999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 457">*466 in 1993, and $ 46,162.61 in 1994. Finally, a senior construction engineer at Shell responsible for construction of new service station and maintenance of other service stations, Raymond G. Newsome (Mr. Newsome), testified that he personally observed petitioner performing painting services for Shell during the years in issue.
The president of Town and Country, Robert Balian (Mr. Balian), also testified on behalf of respondent. Mr. Balian identified invoices sent to Town and Country by PAINT-SER LTD., and copies of checks sent to PAINT-SER LTD. for payment of those invoices. The PAINT-SER LTD. invoices represented charges for materials and labor related to painting new and old service stations for Town and Country. Mr. Balian also testified that PAINT-SER LTD. and petitioner were one and the same. On the basis of the record, we find that Town and Country paid petitioner, d.b.a. PAINT-SER LTD., $ 27,807.20 in 1990, $ 49,442.09 in 1991, $ 17,821.04 in 1992, $ 230.64 in 1993, and $ 8,091.17 in 1994 for painting services.
Petitioners presented no evidence or argument on brief contesting these facts. 3 When this case was called for trial there was no appearance by or on behalf of petitioners; 1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 457">*467 however, respondent went forward with the evidence. At the close of the trial, respondent moved to have his answer amended to conform to the proof. This Court granted respondent's oral motion. The amended answer asks this Court to find that petitioners had total income of $ 51,619.64 in 1989, $ 112,640.08 in 1990, $ 85,361.57 in 1991, $ 80,984.85 in 1992, $ 64,876.17 in 1993, and $ 54,253.78 in 1994. Accordingly, on the basis of the record, we hold that Mr. Bodwell earned total income for painting services from both Shell and Town and Country as follows: $ 51,619.64 in 1989, $ 112,640.08 in 1990, $ 85,361.57 in 1991, $ 80,984.85 in 1992, $ 64,876.17 in 1993, and $ 54,253.78 in 1994.
During the years in issue, petitioner and Mrs. Bodwell resided in California, a community property State. Married persons who reside in a community property State are generally each required to report one-half of their community income for Federal income tax purposes. See
Where taxpayers have trade or business income, they ordinarily have business and other deductions. Deductions are strictly a matter of legislative grace; however, petitioners bear the burden of providing evidence to substantiate the claimed deductions. See
ISSUE 2. SELF-EMPLOYMENT TAX
On brief, respondent contends that petitioner "is liable for self-employment tax on all of the income he earned."
Under
It is uncontested that petitioner, d.b.a. PAINT-SER LTD., managed and controlled the performance of the painting services associated with PAINT-SER LTD. On the basis of the record and
ISSUE 3. FAILURE TO FILE TIMELY TAX RETURN OR TO PAY TAX
Respondent determined that the addition to tax for failure to file timely a tax return was applicable for each of the years in issue. It is uncontested that petitioners did not file tax returns for any of the years in issue. An income tax return must be filed by all individuals receiving gross income in excess of certain minimum amounts. See
ISSUE 4. FAILURE TO PAY ESTIMATED INCOME TAX
Respondent determined that petitioners were liable for the addition to tax under
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered under Rule 155.
1. Mrs. Bodwell died on October 25, 1994. On Feb. 22, 1996, we ordered that Mr. Bodwell, "the surviving spouse of Betty Bodwell, Deceased, is appointed special administrator of the estate of Betty Bodwell, solely for the purpose of maintaining the present proceeding as to the estate of Betty Bodwell, Deceased."↩
2. This case originally involved determined deficiencies in income tax for the years 1982 to 1994, inclusive, totaling $ 412,290 and additions to the tax under
1. On brief, respondent states that the amount of petitioners'
income from Town and Country for 1993 is $ 203.64. However,
respondent's schedules accompanying the brief indicate that
petitioners' income is $ 230.64. After reviewing the record, it is
apparent that the correct amount of income received from Town and
Country by petitioners in 1993 is $ 230.64.↩
3. This matter has a long procedural history. In their petition filed Sept. 29, 1995, petitioners made standard frivolous arguments. On Nov. 15, 1995, we ordered petitioners to amend their petition. On Dec. 4, 1995, petitioners filed an amended petition again making standard frivolous tax-protester arguments. On Mar. 5, 1996, we ordered petitioners to file a second amended petition stating:
petitioners have failed to satisfy the requirements of
Rule 34(b). The best that can be said of both the
petition and amended petition is that petitioners have
assigned error in respect of respondent's determinations.
However, neither the petition nor the amended petition
includes any statement of the facts on which petitioners
base the assignments of error. * * * [Fn. ref. omitted.]
Petitioners filed a second amended petition that continued to assert frivolous tax-protester arguments. Accordingly, on May 28, 1996, we ordered that, except for matters dealing with the burden of proof in the second amended petition, "the petition, amended petition, and second amended petition will be stricken in their entirety".
This is the second trial of this case. On May 5, 1997, we held the first trial. On Mar. 4, 1998, we ordered that the record from the first trial, including the petitioner's answering brief, "will not be considered in deciding the merits of the case unless and to the extent that the parties so stipulate". There have been no stipulations to this effect.↩