1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 251">*251 Decision will be entered for respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This case was heard pursuant to section 7443A(b)(3) 1 and Rules 180, 181, and 182.
1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 251">*252 Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' 1995 Federal income tax in the amount of $ 3,272 and an accuracy- related penalty under
The issues for decision are as follows:
(1) Whether petitioners are entitled to certain claimed itemized
deductions.
(2) Whether petitioners are entitled to certain claimed Schedule
C deductions.
(3) Whether petitioners are entitled to an earned income tax
credit.
(4) Whether petitioners are liable for the accuracy-related
penalty under
of rules or regulations.
BACKGROUND
Petitioners resided in Trenton, New Jersey, at the time the petition was filed. In their amended petition, petitioners assert the following:
All the adjustments made are incorrect. IRS had no
grounds for making any changes in my report as
submitted. IRS had no reference and/or informations
over and above my report to justify any claim(s) of
deficiency.
The amended petition was filed in this case on January 20, 1998. Respondent's answer was filed February 2, 1998. By1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 251">*253 notice dated August 12, 1998, this case was set for trial at a session commencing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on November 2, 1998. At the calendar call, petitioner Abdus-Salaam Muhsin (petitioner) appeared and orally moved for a continuance. Respondent's counsel advised that petitioners had not communicated and cooperated with respondent's counsel. The Court advised petitioner of the requirement to communicate and cooperate with respondent's representatives. Also the Court was advised that petitioner was in the process of talking with a representative of the Villanova Tax Clinic. 2 Based on these circumstances, including the indication that petitioners would cooperate in an attempt to settle and/or narrow the issues, the case was continued from the November 2, 1998, Philadelphia, trial session.
1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 251">*254 The matter was not resolved. The case was again set for a trial session beginning February 22, 1999, in Philadelphia. Petitioner appeared at the calendar call and made an oral motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and, in the alternative, a motion for a continuance. The Court denied the motions and set the matter for trial on the afternoon of February 22, 1999. When the case was called for trial, petitioner and counsel for respondent appeared. Petitioner provided the Court with a trial memorandum. Petitioners enumerated seven numbered issues in the memorandum, none of which related to the adjustments in the notice of deficiency. The issues set forth by petitioners related to the authority of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to proceed in this matter and the jurisdiction of this Court. Respondent's counsel advised the Court that petitioners had failed to respond to attempted communications.
Upon a review of petitioners' trial memorandum, the Court advised petitioner that it was incumbent upon him to address the adjustments set forth in the notice of deficiency. The Court explained that petitioners needed to present evidence, by way of testimony or documents, with respect1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 251">*255 to the adjustments. The Court further explained that petitioners would be given a limited opportunity to present argument relating to issues set forth in their trial memorandum and that the Court might consider imposing a penalty under section 6673(a)(1) if petitioners pursued arguments that were primarily for delay or were frivolous or groundless.
A review of this record, which includes a copy of petitioners' 1995 Federal income tax return and the notice of deficiency dated August 27, 1997, reflects that petitioner is an Islamic religious leader (an Imam) in the Trenton, New Jersey, community. Petitioner asserts that he travels to places of worship and conducts visitations on a daily basis. Petitioner reported gross receipts from this activity in the amount of $ 3,121 and expenses of $ 7,923. Petitioners also reported wages of $ 30,322 and total itemized deductions of $ 13,734. With respect to the itemized deductions, respondent disallowed $ 4,211 of claimed charitable contribution deductions and $ 8,173 of miscellaneous itemized deductions. The above adjustments, which caused an increase in the taxable income, resulted in a computational adjustment reducing the earned income credit1999 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 251">*256 to zero.
DISCUSSION
Petitioners, despite having been admonished by the Court, did not present any evidence (documents or testimony) to support entitlement to the claimed deductions. As we have stated on many occasions, deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and a taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to any deductions claimed. See
Respondent determined petitioners were liable for the accuracy-related penalty under
It is the taxpayer's responsibility to establish he is not liable for the accuracy-related penalty imposed by
The Court hereby puts petitioners on notice that in any future proceedings instituted by them primarily for delay, or where their position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, they will be subject to a penalty not in excess of $ 25,000 pursuant to section 6673.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for respondent.
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
2. An attorney from the clinic advised the Court that he was considering entering an appearance depending upon his communications with petitioners. The clinic attorney did not enter an appearance in this matter.
END FOOTNOTES↩