Opinion
30811-21
01-04-2023
HORACE CROGMAN & M. TREBEAU-CROGMAN,Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,Respondent
ORDER
James S. Halpern Judge
Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioners and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Judge James S. Halpern at San Diego, California (remote proceeding), on October 28, 2022, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which this case was heard.
In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, a decision will be entered for respondent.
Bench Opinion by Judge James S. Halpern
October 28, 2022
Horace Crogman & M. Trebeau-Crogman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Docket No. 30811-21
THE COURT: The Court has decided to render the following as its oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(d) of the Internal Revenue Code and Tax Court Rule 152, and it shall not be relied upon as precedent in any other case.Petitioners resided in California when they filed a petition. Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioners' 2018 Federal income tax of $8,258 and an accuracy-related penalty of $1651.60. Petitioners bear the burden of proof with respect to the deficiency in tax and respondent bears a burden of production with respect to the accuracy-related penalty.
The deficiency arises because it was respondent's adjustment to petitioners reported taxable income, principally, disallowing a rental real estate expense and business-related expenses for depreciation and car and truck expenses. Petitioners also failed to report $118 of interest and $1,440 of unemployment compensation. Petitioners provided no substantiation for the disallowed expenses, and we will sustain the deficiency. Petitioners made no argument that they did not receive the interest and unemployment compensation and we will sustain those adjustments giving rise to the deficiency.
Respondent has the burden of production with respect to the accuracy-related penalty, which includes making a prima facie case that section 6751(b) of the Internal Revenue Code requirements for written supervisory approval has been met. See, e.g. Ball v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2020-152 at 12 .
Section 6751(b)(1) provides that no penalty under this title shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved in writing by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination or such higher official as the secretary may designate. Respondent has carried that burden with Exhibit 1-R, page 12.
This concludes the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this case. Decision will be entered for respondent.
All right. That concludes this opinion
(Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the above-entitled matter was concluded.)
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER AND PROOFREADER
CASE NAME: Horace Crogman & M. Trebeau-Crogman v. Commissioner DOCKET NO.: 30811-21
We, the undersigned, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages, numbers 1 through 5 inclusive, are the true, accurate and complete transcript prepared from the verbal recording made by electronic recording by Amanda Self on October 28, 2022 before the United States Tax Court at its remote session in San Diego, CA, in accordance with the applicable provisions of the current verbatim reporting contract of the Court and have verified the accuracy of the transcript by comparing the typewritten transcript against the verbal recording.
Susan Patterson, CDLT-174 11/20/22
Transcriber Date
Lori Rahtes, CDLT-108 11/23/22