T.C. Summary Opinion 2009-187



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



           DENIS M. AND YOLANDA DOYLE, Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 30550-08S.             Filed December 9, 2009.



     Denis M. and Yolanda Doyle, pro sese.

     Marie E. Small, for respondent.



     CHIECHI, Judge:    This case was heard pursuant to the provi-

sions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when

the petition was filed.1   Pursuant to section 7463(b), the deci-

sion to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this

opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.


     1
      Hereinafter, all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code in effect for the year at issue. All Rule refer-
ences are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                              - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency in, and an accuracy-

related penalty under section 6662(a) on, petitioners’ Federal

income tax for their taxable year 2006 of $9,140 and $1,828,

respectively.

     The issue remaining for decision for petitioners’ taxable

year 2006 is whether petitioners are required to include in gross

income interest on certain bank accounts and certain certificates

of deposit maintained in the name of petitioner Yolanda Doyle.2

We hold that they are required to do so.

                           Background

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found

except as stated herein.

     Petitioners resided in New York at the time they filed the

petition in this case.

     During 2006, petitioner Yolanda Doyle (Ms. Doyle) maintained

accounts at the following banks (four bank accounts in question)

and earned interest on those accounts in the amounts indicated:




     2
      Petitioners make no argument about any of the other deter-
minations in the notice of deficiency dated Sept. 29, 2008
(notice) that respondent issued to them for their taxable year
2006 (discussed below). We conclude that petitioners have
abandoned contesting those other determinations.
                                - 3 -

                          Bank                    Interest
         Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh        $3,101
         JP Morgan Chase Bank                          58
         North Fork Bank                              684
         Banco Popular                              1,328

     On December 1, 2005, Ms. Doyle purchased from Doral Bank

two certificates of deposit (two certificates of deposit in

question), each of which was for a term of 13 months.     Doral

Bank issued each of those certificates in the name of Yolanda

P. Doyle “ITF”3 Denis M. Doyle.4    Each of the two certificates

of deposit in question showed Ms. Doyle’s Social Security

number.     During 2006, Doral Bank credited interest totaling

(1) $4,786.81 to one of those two certificates and

(2) $5,097.96 to the second of those two certificates.

     In the notice that respondent issued to petitioners for

their taxable year 2006,5 respondent, inter alia, included in

their gross income the interest credited during that year to


     3
      The abbreviation “ITF” means “in trust for”.
     4
      One of the two certificates of deposit in question was
issued in the name of Ms. Doyle “ITF DENIS S DOYLE”. We presume
that the middle initial in that certificate is a typographical
error.
     5
      The parties stipulated that the notice with respect to
which petitioners filed the petition in this case pertained to
taxable year 2005 and that that notice was dated July 23, 2007.
Those stipulations are clearly contrary to the facts that we have
found are established by the record, and we shall disregard them.
See Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. v. Commissioner, 

, 195
(1989). The record establishes, and we have found, that respon-
dent issued a notice to petitioners on Sept. 29, 2008, and that
that notice pertained to their taxable year 2006.
                                - 4 -

(1) the four bank accounts in question and (2) the two certifi-

cates of deposit in question.

                           Discussion

     Petitioners bear the burden of proving error in the

determinations in the notice that remain at issue.6   See Rule

142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 

, 115 (1933).

     Petitioners are not strangers to the Court.   In Doyle v.

Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-131, petitioners

argued, as they argue here, that the interest on certain bank

accounts maintained in Ms. Doyle’s name and Social Security

number was in fact the interest income of certain relatives of

Ms. Doyle who do not live in the United States.    The claim that

petitioners made in Doyle v. 

, was with

respect to their taxable years 2004 and 2005.   The claim that

they make here is with respect to their taxable year 2006.

     Petitioners rely on Ms. Doyle’s testimony in order to

satisfy their burden of proof with respect to the issue pre-

sented.   We found the testimony of Ms. Doyle to be in material

respects general, vague, conclusory, self-serving, and uncor-

roborated.   We shall not rely on Ms. Doyle’s testimony to

establish petitioners’ position that they are not required to


     6
      Petitioners do not claim that the burden of proof shifts to
respondent under sec. 7491(a). In any event, petitioners have
failed to establish that they satisfy the requirements of sec.
7491(a). On the record before us, we find that the burden of
proof does not shift to respondent under that section.
                             - 5 -

include in gross income the interest at issue.     See, e.g.,

Tokarski v. Commissioner, 

, 77 (1986).

     On the record before us, we find that petitioners have

failed to carry their burden of establishing that the money

maintained during 2006 in the four bank accounts in question

and the two certificates of deposit in question was not Ms.

Doyle’s money but was the money of certain of her relatives.

On that record, we find that petitioners have failed to carry

their burden of establishing that they are not required to

include in gross income interest credited during 2006 to those

bank accounts and those certificates.

     We have considered all of petitioners’ contentions and

arguments that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be

without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                      Decision will be entered

                                 for respondent.