Decision will be entered for respondent.
R determined a deficiency in Ps' 2007 Federal income tax. After Ps' concession, the issues for decision are: (1) whether
*168
WHERRY,
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulation of facts and supplemental stipulation of facts with their accompanying exhibits are hereby incorporated by reference into our findings. At the time they filed their petition, petitioners resided in California.
Lisa Merino was not a real estate professional during 2007. 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 174">*176 Guillermo Merino, Jr., was the president and sole shareholder of One Stop Home Loans (One Stop), an S corporation, in 2007. Mr. Merino organized One Stop in 2005 to independently process loan applications for various lenders. A typical day at One Stop for Mr. Merino consisted of supervising between two and four employees, making calls, bringing borrowers or potential borrowers into the office, and reviewing and processing files and loans. Mr. Merino was responsible for monitoring the finances of One Stop, and all of the money went through his account. In 2007 Mr. Merino received income of $112,489 reported on a Schedule K-1, Shareholder's Share of Income, Deductions, Credits, etc., and income of $20,000 reported on a Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, from One Stop. 4
*170 Also in 2007 Mr. Merino operated a business listed as Mona Vie, Inc., on petitioners' Schedule C, Profit or Loss From 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 174">*177 Business, attached to their 2007 Form 1040. This business involved the sale and distribution of an acai berry drink. The business was not associated with Mr. Merino's mortgage business or his real estate rental activity.
Mr. Merino's third income-producing activity in 2007, and the activity at the center of the dispute in this case, is his real estate rental activity. He owned seven properties in 2007, one in Colorado and six in Nevada. To handle the Colorado property, Mr. Merino used a management company throughout 2007. As consideration for the management company's services in 2007, he paid $120 per month. The management company collected rent, leased or rented the property, looked into problems with the property, and talked with the homeowners association. For the six Nevada properties, Mr. Merino engaged the services of an assistant at the rate of $50 to $75 per month per property who collected checks from tenants and handled assigned tasks requested by Mr. Merino. Examples of such requests included opening doors for locked-out tenants and arranging for *171 delivery of rock for a property's yard landscaping. In late 2007 or sometime in 2008 Mr. Merino prepared a summary of the time 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 174">*178 he spent in connection with the rental properties.
On April 14, 2008, petitioners filed a request for an automatic extension of time to file their tax return, which made their return due on October 15, 2008. Petitioners did not file their 2007 tax return until March 14, 2010. On the return petitioners reported losses from all seven rental properties on their Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss, for the 2007 tax year. Respondent issued a notice of deficiency, and petitioners timely petitioned this Court. A trial was held on March 23, 2012, in Los Angeles, California.
The Commissioner's determination of a taxpayer's liability is generally presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the determination is improper.
*173 A taxpayer qualifies as a real estate professional, and his rental real estate activity is not per se a passive activity, if: (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.
Respondent contends that petitioners failed to prove that: (1) Mr. Merino performed more than half of his services in real property trades or businesses and *174 (2) Mr. Merino performed more than 750 hours of services in a real property trade or business. We agree. Petitioners presented no evidence of how many hours Mr. Merino spent at One Stop and Mona Vie. Clearly, the time spent at One Stop was significant as petitioner supervised between two and four employees, ran the business as president, processed and reviewed files and loans, and monitored finances. Because Mr. Merino failed to present evidence 62013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 174">*182 of the time spent on non-rental-activity services, he failed to meet the first requirement of
Further, we find that petitioners failed to carry their burden of proof with respect to
Mr. Merino acknowledged that he prepared the summary using his estimates and his memory as to how much time he spent on certain tasks with respect to the real estate rental activity. Unfortunately, we found Mr. Merino's summary to be less of an approximation and more of a "ballpark guesstimate".
Mr. Merino's summary was not created from contemporaneous documentation, but rather it is a postevent reconstruction from memory.
Mr. Merino's estimates, however well meaning, 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 174">*185 are unreliable and uncorroborated. For instance, we are skeptical that Mr. Merino on average: purchased and had delivered one appliance per month for at least one of his seven *177 properties; received a notice of violations of homeowners association rules requiring an hour of work at least once per week; or had a property with a problem that required a contractor every week.
Mr. Merino was unable to recall any specifics about any particular entry in his narrative summary or otherwise provide evidence as to the reliability of the summary. Furthermore Mr. Merino admitted an error in his chart, which improperly ascribed four hours of work per week to check writing when it should have been four hours per month. Correction of this error reduces the hours reported by 160 (i.e. (52 weeks x 4 = 208 hours claimed) minus (12 months x 4 = 48 actual hours) = 160 fictitious hours). Mr. Merino also counted all of his travel time when he went to visit his properties, including unrelated activities such as meals with friends and time spent sleeping. Finally, the summary does not clearly distinguish between or identify services Mr. Merino personally performed and services the Colorado management company 2013 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 174">*186 or the Nevada assistant may have performed.
On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the summary and the lack of any corroborating evidence, such as invoices or letters to and from the homeowners associations, other than Mr. Merino's self-serving testimony, we find that the summary does not fall within the regulation's "any reasonable means". *178
Petitioners also do not qualify for the limited exception under
Respondent bears the burden of production with respect to the
As a general rule, "any person made liable for any tax * * * shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary."
The parties do not dispute that petitioners requested and received an automatic extension, which extended the due date of the return to October 15, 2008.
Respondent also bears the burden of production for the determined penalty and must produce sufficient evidence establishing that it is appropriate to impose *181 the penalty.
For the purposes of the penalty, "'negligence' includes any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of this title".
There is an exception to the
Reliance on the advice of a tax professional may, but does not necessarily, establish reasonable cause and good faith for the purpose of avoiding a
Respondent has met his burden of production. He has shown that the understatement exceeds the greater of 10% of the tax required to be shown on the return or $5,000, and we therefore need not decide whether petitioners were negligent or disregarded rules or regulations. Petitioners bear the burden of proving a defense to the penalty.
*184 The Court has considered all of petitioners' contentions, argument, requests, and statements. To the extent not discussed herein, we conclude that they are meritless, moot, or irrelevant. To reflect the foregoing,
1. At trial Mr. Merino submitted to the Court a letter of consent from Ms. Merino informing the Court that she authorized Mr. Merino to act on her behalf.↩
2. Petitioners conceded the disallowance of $21,123 of their deduction for home mortgage interest.↩
3. Unless otherwise noted, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended and in effect for the year in issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.↩
4. Petitioners' Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, reported a total of $199,015 in wage income. Presumably $179,015 of this income is attributable to Mrs. Merino. Petitioners reported their adjusted gross income as $293,297. Respondent's adjustments resulted in adjusted gross income of $362,406.↩
5. Petitioners did not make such an election for the 2007 tax year. They contend, however, that we should honor a late election. We need not decide this issue because, as we find
6. Mr. Merino's statements in his briefs that he spent only 20 hours per week on One Stop because he was staying at home caring for his wife and infant daughter, however true or sympathetic, are not evidence.
7. At trial respondent raised the possibility that the
8. In their briefs petitioners for the first time argue that they reasonably relied upon a tax professional. Petitioners did not present any evidence of reliance on a professional at trial, and we cannot accept the statements in the briefs as evidence.
9. Again petitioners attempted in their briefs to raise a reasonable cause defense based on reliance on a tax professional, but petitioners presented no evidence of such reliance at trial. Petitioners' statements in the briefs are not evidence.