PURSUANT TO
Decision will be entered for respondent.
HAINES,
Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal income tax for 2008 and 2009 (years at issue) of $17,756 2 and $21,357, respectively. After concessions, 3 there are three issues for decision. The first issue is whether petitioners are entitled to deduct certain losses from their rental real estate activity for the years at issue. We hold they are not. The second issue is whether petitioners are entitled to a deduction for certain automobile expenses they claimed for 2008 with respect to the rental real estate 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 71">*72 activity. We hold they are not. The final issue is whether petitioners failed to include in income certain interest payments. We hold they did.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the supplemental stipulation of facts, together with the attached exhibits, are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioners resided in California when the petition was filed.
During the years at issue petitioners owned and operated a residential home care facility (nursing home). Mr. Daco helped take care of the nursing home residents. Mr. Daco also worked as a realtor during this same time. Mrs. Daco was a 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 71">*73 registered nurse and worked two full-time jobs in that capacity during the years at issue. She would also on occasion help with the nursing home residents.
Petitioners together owned four rental properties (rental properties) during the years at issue. Three of the rental properties were located in Nevada, and the fourth was in California. Petitioners used a management company to provide certain services for the rental properties in Nevada. Petitioners elected to treat the rental properties as a single activity (rental real estate activity) under
Petitioners timely filed joint Federal income tax returns for the years at issue. On their 2008 return petitioners claimed a rental real estate loss deduction of $51,387, and on their 2009 return they claimed a rental real estate loss deduction of $63,593. Petitioners' adjusted gross income without the claimed loss deduction from the rental real estate activity exceeded $150,000 for each year at issue. On their 2008 return petitioners also claimed a $1,388 deduction for car and truck expenses that they purportedly incurred in the rental real estate activity. 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 71">*74 Third-party payors reported on Forms 1099-INT, Interest Income, that petitioners were paid interest totaling $77 for 2009. Petitioners reported on their return for 2009 only $38 of the interest reflected on the Forms 1099-INT.
Respondent issued a notice of deficiency disallowing deductions for the claimed rental real estate losses and part of the deductions claimed for the car and truck expenses. 4 Respondent also adjusted petitioners' income upward for interest the third-party payors reported on Forms 1099-INT but that petitioners failed to report on their return. Petitioners timely filed a petition with this Court challenging the determinations.
Generally, the Commissioner's determination of a deficiency is presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving it incorrect.
We must decide whether the passive activity loss limitation rules preclude petitioners from deducting the losses from the rental real estate activity for the years at issue. Taxpayers are allowed deductions for certain business and investment expenses under sections 162 and 212. However,
Rental activity is generally treated as a per se passive activity regardless of whether the taxpayer materially participates.
To qualify as a real estate professional, a taxpayer must satisfy both of the following requirements: (i) more than one-half of the personal services performed in trades or businesses by the taxpayer during such taxable year are performed in real property trades or businesses in which the taxpayer materially participates, and (ii) such taxpayer performs more than 750 hours of services during the taxable year in real property trades or businesses in which the taxpayer materially participates. The extent of an individual's participation in an activity may be established by any reasonable means. Contemporaneous daily time reports, logs, or similar documents are not required if the extent of such participation may be established by other reasonable means. Reasonable 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 71">*77 means for purposes of this paragraph may include but are not limited to the identification of services performed over a period of time and the approximate number of hours spent performing such services during such period, based on appointment books, calendars, or narrative summaries.
Even if taxpayers fail to qualify as real estate professionals under
Petitioners contend that Mr. Daco satisfies the real estate professional requirements under
As for the active participation exception to the passive loss rules, it is irrelevant because the $25,000 amount begins to phase out when the taxpayer's adjusted gross income, determined without regard to any passive activity loss, exceeds $100,000 and is phased out entirely when the taxpayer's adjusted gross income reaches $150,000.
We now turn to whether respondent properly disallowed certain automobile expense deductions petitioners claimed with respect to the rental real estate activity for 2008. It bears repeating that deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the taxpayer 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 71">*80 must prove he is entitled to the deductions claimed. Rule 142(a);
To satisfy the adequate records requirement of section 274(d), a taxpayer must maintain records and documentary evidence that in combination are sufficient to establish each element of an expenditure or use.
In the absence of adequate records to substantiate each element of an expense, a taxpayer may alternatively establish an element by "his own statement, whether written or oral, containing specific information in detail as to such element" and by "other corroborative evidence sufficient to establish such element."
In lieu of substantiating the actual amount of any expenditure relating to the business use of a passenger automobile, a taxpayer may use a standard mileage rate as established by the Internal Revenue Service.
Petitioners did not maintain a contemporaneous mileage log for the rental real estate activity. And petitioners did not offer any other credible evidence to establish the number of miles traveled or the date, place, and business purpose of the travel. To be sure, petitioners did offer summaries, prepared in preparation for trial, of the mileage Mr. Daco purportedly drove to perform services in the rental real estate activity. Section 274(d) requires any record to be supported by documentary evidence and a noncontemporaneous record to be supported by evidence with a "high degree of probative value".
Finally, we address respondent's determination that petitioners failed to include $39 of taxable interest in income. As previously mentioned, generally, a taxpayer bears the burden of proving the Commissioner's determinations incorrect. Rule 142(a);
Respondent introduced into evidence a computer-generated "Wage and Income Transcript" showing data from all the information returns that the IRS received for 2009 with respect to petitioners. 7 The Wage and Income Transcript reflects that respondent received from third-party payors Forms 1099-INT reporting that petitioners were paid interest totaling $77 for 2009. Petitioners reported only $38 of interest income for 2009. The Court asked Mr. Daco whether he received the $39 of unreported interest income reflected on the Wage and Income Transcript, and Mr. Daco did not dispute that he received it. We find that respondent sufficiently established an evidentiary foundation with respect to the $39 in unreported interest income for 2009. Consequently, petitioners bear the burden of proving that respondent's determinations were arbitrary or 2013 Tax Ct. Summary LEXIS 71">*85 erroneous.
Petitioners did not forward any arguments or present any evidence at trial to show that respondent's determination regarding the unreported interest income for 2009 was arbitrary or erroneous. And as previously mentioned, Mr. Daco did not dispute, when asked by the Court, that he received the unreported interest income. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determination.
In reaching our holdings herein, we have considered all arguments made, and, to the extent not mentioned above, we conclude they are moot, irrelevant, or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as amended and in effect for the taxable years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. All amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.↩
3. Respondent also determined that petitioners were not entitled to a deduction for car and truck expenses claimed with respect to a residential home care business for each year at issue and claimed with respect to a realtor business for 2008. Petitioners had the burden of proof for these adjustments and failed to produce evidence or address these adjustments at trial; therefore, the adjustments are deemed conceded.
4. Respondent also made several other determinations that have been conceded.
5. Petitioners have never contended that Mrs. Daco satisfies the real estate professional requirements, nor does the record establish that she met those requirements for the years at issue.↩
6. If a factual basis exists to do so, the Court may in another context approximate an allowable expense, bearing heavily against the taxpayer who failed to maintain adequate records.
7. If a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item of income reported on an information return filed with the Secretary by a third party and the taxpayer has fully cooperated with the Secretary, the Secretary shall have the burden of producing reasonable and probative information concerning the deficiency in addition to that information return. Sec. 6201(d). We note that sec. 6201(d) is inapplicable here because the Wage and Income Transcript is not an information return.↩