An appropriate order and decision will be entered.
GERBER,
*182 Respondent contends that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and that the determination in the notice of deficiency with respect to petitioner's 2013 income tax liability and accuracy-related penalty should be sustained. Petitioner's response to respondent's motion was filed August 8, 2016. The issues for our consideration are whether petitioner failed to report $28,704 of income and is liable for an accuracy-related penalty under
At the time the petition was filed, petitioner resided in Missouri. Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for 2013 which did not include $28,629 of unemployment compensation that she had received from the State of Connecticut. Petitioner during the administrative proceeding contended that she used an online2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 179">*180 method for filing her return and was not aware that the unemployment compensation needed to be included because it was not "earned income". Petitioner also did not include $75 that she received in connection with her health savings account during 2013. In a June 29, 2015, notice of deficiency, respondent determined a $6,193 deficiency in petitioner's 2013 income tax and a $141 accuracy-related penalty for an underpayment attributable to a substantial understatement of income tax within the meaning of
*183 Petitioner timely filed a petition for redetermination and alleged that she was not aware that the unemployment compensation was includible because it was not earnings and unemployment compensation was not "described" in the online program she used to file her return. She also alleged that she did not receive information concerning the unemployment compensation until after she had used the online return preparation. In her petition to this Court, petitioner did not specifically contest the inclusion of the $28,629 of unemployment compensation or reference the $75 health account adjustment.22016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 179">*181 Finally, petitioner did not specifically contest the accuracy-related penalty in her petition.
In her 2013 income tax return, petitioner reported negative taxable income of $9,183, an earned income credit of $4,490, and a child tax credit of $1,000. After inclusion of the $28,629 of unemployment compensation and the $75 health account adjustment, petitioner's corrected taxable income was $19,521.
After this case was set on a St. Louis, Missouri, trial session, respondent moved for summary judgment with respect to the 2013 income tax deficiency and the penalty, stating that there was no genuine issue of material fact. Petitioner, in her response to respondent's motion, stated that she had contacted the Internal *184 Revenue Service Taxpayer Advocate Service (Advocate), who advised that petitioner could still amend her 2013; return and she asked the Court to allow her time to amend her return so that the "fee" (sic penalty) would not be assessed. Petitioner also stated that she is "now disputing the amount owed, due to the information that * * * [she] received from the Advocate."
Summary judgment is intended to expedite2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 179">*182 litigation and to avoid unnecessary and expensive trials.
Respondent's motion made allegations of fact based upon documents attached to the motion. Petitioner's response made no statements concerning or in other respects showing that respondent's alleged facts were incorrect and/or that there was any dispute concerning them. In the documents attached to respondent's motion, petitioner's written responses to respondent tacitly agreed that the unemployment compensation was2016 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 179">*183 taxable and that she failed to report it in her 2013 return. Under these circumstances, we must find and hold that respondent's determination that petitioner had unreported income of $28,704 was not in error.
With respect to the $141 accuracy-related penalty under
Petitioner did not specifically raise the penalty in her petition, but she raised the question of the "fee" (which we interpret to mean "penalty") in her response to respondent's motion. Petitioner's explanation that the online software did not reference the unemployment compensation and/or that she did not receive information from the State of Connecticut until after she had filed her return does *187 not, in the context of this case, constitute reasonable cause for which petitioner may be relieved of the penalty. Accordingly, respondent's determination with respect to the
Accordingly, we will grant respondent's motion.
To reflect the foregoing,
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. The income tax deficiency was also based on other mathematical adjustments that were purely computational and generated by the determination of increased income.