                       T.C. Memo. 1999-203



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                REGINA B. JACKSON, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 11251-98.              Filed June 21, 1999.

     Regina B. Jackson, pro se.

     Roger W. Bracken, for respondent.


             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

     COHEN, Chief Judge:    Respondent determined deficiencies of

$8,964 and $11,970 in petitioner's Federal income taxes for 1993

and 1994, respectively, and additions to tax for each year under

sections 6651(a) and 6654(a).   After concessions, the issues for

decision are whether petitioner must include in taxable income

Maryland State income tax refunds received in 1993; whether

petitioner is entitled to additional deductions for charitable

contributions, employee travel expenses, education expenses, and
                               - 2 -


job search expenses; and whether petitioner is liable for the

additions to tax determined by respondent.    Unless otherwise

indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue

Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references

are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.

                          FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated

facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference.

Petitioner resided in Gaithersburg, Maryland, at the time that

she filed her petition.

     During 1993 and 1994, petitioner was employed as a program

analyst by the Department of the Air Force.    In 1994, petitioner

received a master's degree in general administration.    During

1994, petitioner took educational courses related to her

attainment of the master's degree.     She received wage income of

$48,147.38 in 1993 and $59,010.41 in 1994.    She received interest

income of $179 in 1993 and $554 in 1994 from various financial

institutions.   During 1993, petitioner received Maryland State

income tax refunds of $636 for 1990 and $1,156 for 1991, a total

of $1,792.

     On the returns she prepared for 1993 and 1994, petitioner

claimed, among other things, the following items as deductions:
                               - 3 -


          Item                            1993              1994

     Mortgage interest                   $9,628           $5,861
     Real estate taxes                    2,182            2,175
     State and local income taxes         2,905            3,657
     Charitable contributions by cash     5,106            5,800
       Other than cash                      500            2,300
     Travel expenses                      1,365              --
     Education                              --             2,500
     Job search                             --             3,202

     During the years in issue, petitioner incurred the following

expenses, which respondent has conceded are deductible on

Schedule A of her returns:

          Item                             1993             1994

     Mortgage interest                    $8,518           $5,861
     Real estate taxes                     2,182            2,174
     State and local income taxes          2,905            3,657
     Charitable contributions                --             2,425

In addition, during 1993 and 1994, petitioner made cash

contributions to her church.

     Petitioner requested an extension of time to August 15,

1994, for filing her 1993 tax return.   Her 1993 return was not

mailed before September 10, 1994.   Petitioner did not send her

1993 or 1994 tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by

certified or registered mail and did not obtain any other proof

of mailing.   Because the IRS could not locate any returns filed

by petitioner, an IRS auditor requested and received returns for

these years, which were signed and dated by petitioner

November 4, 1998.
                                  - 4 -


     Respondent determined that petitioner had failed to file

timely returns for the years in issue, that petitioner had income

based on reports by payers, and that petitioner was entitled to

the standard deduction for each year.

                                OPINION

     Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent's

determinations are erroneous.     See Rule 142(a).    With the

exception noted below, however, she has failed to present

evidence from which we can conclude that she is entitled to

exclude any income or deduct any expenses beyond the amounts

previously conceded by respondent.        Her testimony was vague and

inconclusive.   Notwithstanding the Court's specific suggestion

that the parties stipulate to additional documents after trial,

the only additional information submitted by petitioner led to

respondent's conceding that petitioner contributed $1,300 to the

Combined Federal Campaign in 1994.

     Petitioner essentially asks us to accept the amounts claimed

on her returns in the categories of those items remaining in

dispute.   Those returns, however, are not proof of the amounts

reported on the returns.   Moreover, the stipulation specifically

contradicts the correctness of some of the items claimed by

petitioner.   She acknowledges:

     Wherein the petitioner provided respondent proof of
     itemized deductions contained in the stipulation of
                                - 5 -


       facts filed in the court, the respondent contended that
       other issues remained unsubstantiated by petitioner.
       Petitioner agreed with respondent's dispute that the
       remaining issues were not provided to respondent. They
       were not available at the time. Petitioner provided
       testimony under oath before the court on the remaining
       issues in an effort to substantiate her itemized
       deductions.

Petitioner's testimony, however, failed to establish that the

State income tax refunds that she received in 1993 were not

includable in her taxable income or that she incurred deductible

expenses in the amounts that she claimed.    With respect to the

State tax refunds, she presented no evidence that the amounts

deducted were not previously claimed as itemized deductions

consistent with her pattern for the years in issue.    She

presented no evidence of actual payments of educational expenses

or job search expenses.    It appears that the educational expenses

at least in part led to her master's degree and are not

deductible even if paid.    Certain travel expenses that she

claimed apparently were eligible for reimbursement by her

employer.    Petitioner has provided us with no basis for allowing

any deductions in these categories.

       With respect to her contributions to a church, she testified

that she attended a church "maybe every other Sunday, sometimes

during the winter maybe once a month or every other month or so"

and:
                               - 6 -


          I just drop in the basket maybe somewhere between
     $5 and $10 -- five and ten dollars -- and as far as
     tithes, I don't faithfully put in 10 percent tithes
     every pay period, I do put in 10 percent tithes. I
     can't attest to how frequently I do it -- maybe every
     month, every other pay period or so.

This testimony, however, does not justify the amounts that

petitioner claimed.   Respondent acknowledges that the testimony

would support a deduction of $260 per year for contributions to

the church.   We agree, and petitioner is entitled to a

contribution deduction of $260 in 1993.   For 1994, petitioner is

entitled to a contribution deduction of $2,685 consisting of $260

contributed to the church, $1,300 contributed to the Combined

Federal Campaign, and $1,125 in other contributions reflected in

canceled checks that have been stipulated.   Petitioner presented

no evidence of noncash contributions and cannot be allowed any

further deductions.

     Petitioner contends that she mailed her returns for 1993 and

1994 on September 10, 1994, and August 10, 1995, respectively.

She states that she "can only speculate that her returns were

improperly credited under a previous name, mis-filed, or lost by

the IRS."   In her posttrial memorandum, petitioner asserts for

the first time that the statute of limitations bars the notice

for 1993 and that, therefore, all issues for that year are

"moot".   Her statute of limitations claim is not timely.   See
                                - 7 -


Rule 39.    In any event, we are not persuaded that petitioner's

returns were filed as she asserts.

     Petitioner's testimony provided neither details nor

corroboration that she mailed her returns on the dates that she

claims to have mailed them.    Her speculation as to possible

misfiling or loss by the IRS does not identify any alternative

name that she has ever used or any reason to believe that returns

for 2 consecutive years, filed 11 months apart, would have been

misplaced.    Petitioner presented no reliable evidence that she

secured an extension of time to file her 1994 return or that she

had reasonable cause for belated filing of either return.    Even

by petitioner's account, her returns were late.

     Because petitioner's returns were not timely even if mailed

on the dates that she claims to have signed them, section

7502(a), which treats timely mailing as timely filing, has no

application to this case.    See Maxon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

1994-494.     For purposes of the statute of limitations under

section 6501(a) or to avoid additions to tax under section

6651(a), returns are filed only when they are actually received

by the IRS.    See Walden v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 947, 951-952

(1988); Boone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-102; Diego

Investors-IV v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-630; see also

Belser v. Commissioner, 174 F.2d 386, 390-391 (4th Cir. 1949),
                                 - 8 -


affg. 10 T.C. 1031 (1948).   So far as the record reflects,

returns were not received by the IRS prior to November 1998,

after the notice of deficiency was sent and the petition in this

case was filed.   The additions to tax under section 6651(a) must

be sustained.   The additions to tax under section 6654 are

mandatory absent exceptions not here applicable.       See

Grosshandler v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 1, 20-21 (1980).

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                         Decision will be entered

                                 under Rule 155.
