                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2007-61



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



               TAQUISA DEVON MACKEY, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 6749-06S.              Filed April 23, 2007.


     Taquisa Devon Mackey, pro se.

     Jeffrey S. Luechtefeld and Francis C. Mucciolo, for

respondent.



     PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge:   This case was heard

pursuant to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal

Revenue Code in effect when the petition was filed.   Pursuant to

section 7463(b), the decision to be entered is not reviewable by

any other court, and this opinion should not be treated as

precedent for any other case.   Unless otherwise indicated,

subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in
                               - 2 -

effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the

Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

     Respondent determined a $4,575 deficiency in petitioner

Taquisa Devon Mackey and Arvin D. Mackey’s 2002 income tax and a

$3,447 deficiency in petitioner’s 2003 income tax.   After

concessions,1 the issue for decision is whether petitioner is

entitled to claimed itemized deductions.

                            Background

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

The stipulation of facts and attached exhibits, as well as

additional exhibits introduced at trial, are incorporated herein

by this reference.   Petitioner Taquisa Devon Mackey resided in

Winter Park, Florida, at the time the petition was filed.2

     Petitioner was married to Arvin D. Mackey in 2002 and filed

a joint Federal income tax return for that year.   For 2003

petitioner filed as head of household.   During the years at issue

petitioner worked as a health care coordinator and an infection

control nurse.   Petitioner claimed various itemized deductions

for 2002 and 2003 including medical expenses, taxes, home and


     1
       For 2002, respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled
to a deduction for interest expense in the amount of $11,329 and
a deduction for taxes in the amount of $893. For 2003,
respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled to a $600 child
tax credit and a $600 child care credit.
     2
       Although the notice of deficiency for 2002 was issued to
both Arvin D. and Taquisa Devon Mackey, only Ms. Mackey filed a
petition with this Court.
                                - 3 -

investment interest, contributions, and miscellaneous itemized

deductions.

       Other than amounts allowed by respondent in the notices of

deficiency or immediately prior to trial, petitioner did not

attempt to substantiate the claimed deductions.     Petitioner

asserts that the tax returns in issue were prepared by a

representative of Economy Income Tax Services (EITS).     Petitioner

further suggests that EITS defrauded many taxpayers, including

herself, and that the amounts reflected on the returns are

inaccurate and not based on reality.      Petitioner argues that the

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was complicit in permitting EITS

to continue to prepare returns while under investigation by the

IRS.

                             Discussion

Burden of Proof

       In general, the Commissioner’s determinations set forth in a

notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears

the burden of showing that the determinations are in error.      Rule

142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).      Pursuant

to section 7491(a), the burden of proof as to factual matters

shifts to the Commissioner under certain circumstances.

Petitioner has neither alleged that section 7491(a) applies nor

established her compliance with the requirements of section

7491(a)(2)(A) and (B) to substantiate items, maintain records,
                                - 4 -

and cooperate fully with respondent’s reasonable requests.

Petitioner therefore bears the burden of proof.

Petitioner’s Claimed Itemized Deductions

     Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the

taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to any

deduction claimed.   Rule 142(a); New Colonial Ice Co. v.

Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).     The taxpayer is required to

maintain records that are sufficient to enable the Commissioner

to determine his correct tax liability.     See sec. 6001; sec.

1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.

     Petitioner provided no information as to itemized deductions

and effectively conceded the issue.     Respondent is accordingly

sustained on this issue, except to the extent of concessions made

prior to trial.   Petitioner’s assertion that she should not be

liable for tax because her return preparer may have violated

certain laws is misplaced.   Congress has provided the

Commissioner with remedies that may be enforced against dishonest

return preparers.    See secs. 6694, 6695, 7407; Hyler v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-26.     There is no provision in law,

however, that would relieve petitioner of her personal liability

for a tax deficiency on account of a dishonest return preparer.

Hyler v. Commissioner, supra.    We note that a taxpayer may be

relieved from an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a)

where the taxpayer reasonably relies on a return preparer.        ASAT,
                                 - 5 -

Inc. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 147, 176 (1997).    As noted above,

however, respondent did not determine any penalties in this case

and, accordingly, this exception does not apply.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                           Decision will be entered

                                      under Rule 155.
