T.C. Summary Opinion 2009-189



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                   IRINA AGRONIN, Petitioner v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket Nos. 28745-07S, 2977-09S.     Filed December 10, 2009.



     Irina Agronin, pro se.

     Theresa G. McQueeney, for respondent.



     CHIECHI, Judge:    Each of these consolidated cases was heard

pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal

Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed in each such

case.1   Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decisions to be entered




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

are not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion shall not

be treated as precedent for any other case.

      Respondent determined the following deficiencies in, and

accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) on, petitioner’s

Federal income tax (tax) for her taxable years 2005 and 2006:

        Year     Deficiency          Accuracy-Related Penalty
        2005       $3,496                     $699.20
        2006        4,004                        --

      The issues for decision are:

      (1) Is petitioner entitled to deductions for each of her

taxable years 2005 and 2006 in excess of those that respondent

allowed for each of those years?     We hold that she is not.

      (2) Is petitioner liable for her taxable year 2005 for the

accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a)?     We hold that she

is.

                              Background

      Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

      Petitioner resided in New York at the time she filed the

respective petitions in these cases.

      During 2003 and 2004, petitioner, whose maiden name is

Belman, lived in New York and sought employment as a medical

resident.

      In 2005 and 2006, the taxable years at issue, petitioner was

living in and working as a medical resident in New York and was

in search of a full-time medical residency.     As of the time of
                                - 3 -

the trial in this case, petitioner had not completed her medical

board certification.

     Around September 2005, when petitioner was living in and

working as a medical resident in New York, petitioner’s apartment

in Arkansas had a flood.    Around the same time, petitioner moved

her belongings from Little Rock, Arkansas, to Rockaway Park, New

York.

     In 2005, petitioner’s dependent son, Leonard Agronin (Mr.

Agronin), graduated from St. Mary’s University Law School in San

Antonio, Texas.2   Mr. Agronin did not take the bar exam.

     During 2005 and 2006, Mr. Agronin attended Canisius College

in order to earn a degree in graduate sport administration.

During those years, payments for tuition and room and board

totaling $8,962.50 and $16,889, respectively, were made to

Canisius College with respect to Mr. Agronin’s attendance at that

college.

     Petitioner timely filed Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income

Tax Return, for each of her taxable years 2005 (2005 return) and

2006 (2006 return).    In the 2005 return, petitioner reported

total income and adjusted gross income of $47,649, claimed

itemized deductions of $35,012 from Schedule A--Itemized Deduc-

tions (Schedule A) included with that return (2005 Schedule A),


     2
      It appears that Mr. Agronin attended college in Little
Rock, Ark.
                              - 4 -

and reported taxable income of $6,237.   In the 2005 Schedule A,

petitioner claimed, inter alia, (1) total medical and dental

expenses of $14,800 before the application of the 7.5-percent

floor imposed by section 213(a), (2) total cash and noncash gifts

to charity of $5,900,3 and (3) total “Job Expenses and Certain

Miscellaneous Deductions” (job and other expenses) of $16,824

before the application of the two-percent floor imposed by

section 67(a).4



     3
      The total cash and noncash gifts to charity of $5,900 that
petitioner claimed in the 2005 Schedule A included $2,100 of
claimed noncash gifts to charity.
     4
      Of the total $16,824 of job and other expenses that peti-
tioner claimed in the 2005 Schedule A, petitioner claimed $16,550
for “Unreimbursed employee expenses--job travel, union dues, job
education, etc.” (unreimbursed employee expenses) and $274 for
tax preparation fees. The total $16,550 of unreimbursed employee
expenses that petitioner claimed in that schedule was for the
following claimed expenses:

      Type of Expense Claimed         Amount of Expense Claimed
Job search expenses                             $8,000
Research conferences and seminars                4,000
Professional journals                            3,000
Uniforms                                           200
Uniform maintenance                                200
Shoes                                              100
Medical equipment                                  200
Union dues                                         720
Security locks                                      50
Conference presentations                            80

Petitioner did not attach Form 2106, Employee Business Expenses
(Form 2106), or Form 2106-EZ, Unreimbursed Employee Business
Expenses (Form 2106-EZ), to the 2005 Schedule A as required by
that schedule.
                                - 5 -

     As required by section 213(a), petitioner reduced the total

medical and dental expenses (i.e., $14,800) that she claimed in

the 2005 Schedule A by 7.5 percent of her adjusted gross income

(i.e., by $3,574).    As required by section 67(a), petitioner

reduced the total (i.e., $16,824) job and other expenses that she

claimed in the 2005 Schedule A by two percent of her adjusted

gross income (i.e., by $953).    In determining the taxable income

reported in petitioner’s 2005 return, petitioner deducted the

respective balances of claimed medical and dental expenses and

claimed job and other expenses after the reductions just de-

scribed, as well as the other itemized deductions claimed in the

2005 Schedule A that were not subject to any floor.

     In the 2006 return, petitioner reported $51,743 of total

income and $47,743 of adjusted gross income and claimed itemized

deductions of $70,099 from Schedule A included with that return

(2006 Schedule A).5   In the 2006 Schedule A, petitioner claimed,

inter alia, (1) total medical and dental expenses of $33,000

before the application of the 7.5-percent floor imposed by

section 213(a), (2) total cash gifts to charity of $6,500, and




     5
      The copy of the 2006 return in the record is not complete.
As a result, the record does not disclose, inter alia, the
taxable income that petitioner reported in that return.
                                - 6 -

(3) total job and other expenses of $32,922 before the applica-

tion of the two-percent floor imposed by section 67(a).6

     As required by section 213(a), petitioner reduced the total

medical and dental expenses (i.e., $33,000) that she claimed in

the 2006 Schedule A by 7.5 percent of her adjusted gross income

(i.e., by $3,581).   As required by section 67(a), petitioner

reduced the total job and other expenses (i.e., $32,922) that she

claimed in the 2006 Schedule A by two percent of her adjusted

gross income (i.e., by $955).   In determining the taxable income

reported in the 2006 return, petitioner deducted the respective


     6
      Of the total $32,922 of job and other expenses that peti-
tioner claimed in the 2006 Schedule A, petitioner claimed $32,640
for unreimbursed employee expenses and $282 for tax preparation
fees. The total $32,640 of unreimbursed employee expenses that
petitioner claimed in that schedule was for the following claimed
expenses:

      Type of Expense Claimed           Amount of Expense Claimed
Job search expenses                                 $800
Research conferences and seminars                 10,000
Fellowship program                                15,000
Professional journals                              3,000
Uniforms                                             600
Uniform maintenance                                  400
Shoes                                                300
Medical equipment                                    400
Union dues                                           840
Security locks                                       150
Conference presentations                             150
Graduate exams and testing                         1,000

Petitioner did not attach Form 2106 or Form 2106-EZ to the 2006
Schedule A as required by that schedule.
                               - 7 -

balances of claimed medical and dental expenses and claimed job

and other expenses after the reductions just described, as well

as the other itemized deductions claimed in the 2006 Schedule A

that were not subject to any floor.

     Respondent issued to petitioner a separate notice of defi-

ciency for each of her taxable years 2005 (2005 notice) and 2006

(2006 notice).   In the 2005 notice, respondent disallowed the

total itemized deductions of $35,012 that petitioner claimed in

her 2005 return.7   In the 2005 notice, respondent also determined

to impose on petitioner for her taxable year 2005 an accuracy-

related penalty under section 6662(a).   In the 2006 notice,

respondent disallowed the total itemized deductions of $70,099

that petitioner claimed in her 2006 return.8

                            Discussion

     Petitioner bears the burden of proving error in the determi-

nations in the 2005 notice and the 2006 notice that remain at

issue.9   See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 

, 115

     7
      In the 2005 notice, respondent allowed petitioner a
standard deduction of $7,300.
     8
      In the 2006 notice, respondent allowed petitioner a
standard deduction of $7,550.
     9
      Petitioner does not claim that the burden of proof shifts
to respondent under sec. 7491(a) with respect to the deficiency
that respondent determined for each of the years at issue and
that is attributable to the determinations in the 2005 notice and
the 2006 notice that remain at issue. In any event, petitioner
has failed to carry her burden of establishing that she satisfies
                                                   (continued...)
                                 - 8 -

(1933).   She also bears the burden of proving her entitlement to

any deductions that she is claiming here, which she did not claim

in her 2005 return and her 2006 return.     See Rule 142(a).

Moreover, deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and

petitioner bears the burden of proving entitlement to any deduc-

tion claimed.10    See INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 

,

84 (1992).

     We turn first to the deductions that petitioner is claiming

for each of the years at issue in excess of the amounts that

respondent allowed for each of those years.     It is petitioner’s

position that she is entitled to the respective deductions

claimed in her 2005 return and her 2006 return that respondent

disallowed in the 2005 notice and the 2006 notice and does not

concede here.     In addition, petitioner argues that she is enti-

tled to deductions not claimed in her 2005 return and her 2006

return,11 including, for example, (1) a claimed casualty loss

     9
      (...continued)
the requirements of sec. 7491(a)(2). On the record before us, we
find that the burden of proof does not shift to respondent under
sec. 7491(a).
     10
      The Code and the regulations thereunder require petitioner
to maintain records sufficient to establish the amount of any
deduction claimed. See sec. 6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax
Regs.
     11
      At trial, petitioner was not sure which of the deductions
that she is claiming here for the respective years at issue were
claimed in her 2005 return and her 2006 return and which were
not. Nor was she sure of the respective amounts of all of the
                                                   (continued...)
                                 - 9 -

deduction for her taxable year 2005 relating to a flood in that

year in her apartment in Arkansas, (2) deductions for each of the

years at issue for various types of expenses that she claims she

paid during each of those years for Mr. Agronin, her son, such as

expenses for lodging, food, tuition, books, transportation, and

medical and dental care, and (3) a deduction for her taxable year

2006 for expenses that she claims she paid during that year to

restore the grave sites of her husband and her grandmother, who

are buried in Russia.

     Petitioner relies principally on the testimony of Alla

Agronin (Ms. Agronin) and her own testimony in order to satisfy

her burden of proving that she is entitled to the deductions that

she is claiming for each of the years at issue.    We found the

testimony of Ms. Agronin to be in material respects general,

vague, conclusory, uncorroborated, and serving the interest of

petitioner, who is her mother.    We found the testimony of peti-

tioner to be in material respects general, vague, conclusory,

uncorroborated, and self-serving.    We shall not rely on the

respective testimonies of Ms. Agronin and petitioner to establish

petitioner’s position that she is entitled to the deductions that

she is claiming for each of the years at issue.    See, e.g.,

Tokarski v. Commissioner, 

, 77 (1986).


     11
      (...continued)
various deductions that she is claiming here.
                               - 10 -

     Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,

we find that petitioner has failed to carry her burden of estab-

lishing her entitlement to the deductions that she is claiming

for each of the years at issue in excess of the amounts that

respondent allowed for each of those years.

     We turn now to the accuracy-related penalty under section

6662(a) for which respondent determined petitioner is liable for

her taxable year 2005.   Section 6662(a) imposes an accuracy-

related penalty equal to 20 percent of the underpayment to which

section 6662 applies.    Section 6662 applies to the portion of any

underpayment which is attributable to, inter alia, (1) negligence

or disregard of rules or regulations, sec. 6662(b)(1), or (2) a

substantial understatement of tax, sec. 6662(b)(2).

     The term “negligence” in section 6662(b)(1) includes any

failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the Code.

Sec. 6662(c).   Negligence has also been defined as a failure to

do what a reasonable person would do under the circumstances.

Leuhsler v. Commissioner, 

, 910 (6th Cir. 1992),

affg. T.C. Memo. 1991-179; Antonides v. Commissioner, 

, 699 (1988), affd. 

(4th Cir. 1990).   The term

“negligence” also includes any failure by the taxpayer to keep

adequate books and records or to substantiate items properly.

Sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.   The term “disregard”
                               - 11 -

includes any careless, reckless, or intentional disregard.       Sec.

6662(c).

     For purposes of section 6662(b)(2), an understatement is

equal to the excess of the amount of tax required to be shown in

the tax return over the amount of tax shown in such return.      Sec.

6662(d)(2)(A).   An understatement is substantial in the case of

an individual if the amount of the understatement for the taxable

year exceeds the greater of ten percent of the tax required to be

shown in the tax return for that year or $5,000.    Sec.

6662(d)(1)(A).

     The accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) does not

apply to any portion of an underpayment if it is shown that there

was reasonable cause for, and that the taxpayer acted in good

faith with respect to, such portion.    Sec. 6664(c)(1).   The

determination of whether the taxpayer acted with reasonable cause

and in good faith depends on the pertinent facts and circum-

stances, including the taxpayer’s efforts to assess such tax-

payer’s proper tax liability, the knowledge and experience of the

taxpayer, and the reliance on the advice of a professional, such

as an accountant.    Sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.

     Respondent has the burden of production under section

7491(c) with respect to the accuracy-related penalty under

section 6662(a) that respondent determined for petitioner’s

taxable year 2005.   To meet that burden, respondent must come
                               - 12 -

forward with sufficient evidence showing that it is appropriate

to impose the accuracy-related penalty.   See Higbee v. Commis-

sioner, 

, 446 (2001).   Although respondent bears the

burden of production with respect to the accuracy-related penalty

that respondent determined for petitioner’s taxable year 2005,

respondent “need not introduce evidence regarding reasonable

cause, substantial authority, or similar provisions. * * * the

taxpayer bears the burden of proof with regard to those issues.”

before us, we find that petitioner failed to

maintain adequate books and records and failed to substantiate

virtually all of the deductions that she claimed in her 2005

return.   See sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.   Moreover,

except for the relatively minimal amount of deductions that

respondent concedes for petitioner’s taxable year 2005, we have

sustained respondent’s determinations to disallow the itemized

deductions that petitioner claimed in the 2005 Schedule A in-

cluded with her 2005 return.   On the record before us, we find

that petitioner failed (1) to keep adequate books and records and

(2) to substantiate properly the deductions that she claimed in

the 2005 Schedule A that are at issue.    See sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1),

Income Tax Regs.   On that record, we find that respondent has

carried respondent’s burden of production with respect to the
                             - 13 -

accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) that respondent

determined for petitioner’s taxable year 2005.

     On the record before us, we find that petitioner has failed

to carry her burden of showing that she was not negligent and did

not disregard rules or regulations, or otherwise did what a

reasonable person would do, with respect to the underpayment for

her taxable year 2005.

     On the record before us, we further find that petitioner has

failed to carry her burden of showing that there was reasonable

cause for, and that she acted in good faith with respect to, the

underpayment for her taxable year 2005.

     Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,

we find that petitioner has failed to carry her burden of estab-

lishing that she is not liable for her taxable year 2005 for the

accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).

     We have considered all of petitioner’s contentions and

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

without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot.

     To reflect the foregoing and the concessions of respondent,


                                   Decisions will be entered

                              under Rule 155.