                    T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-144



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 ANTHONY MUHAMMAD, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 16305-05S.               Filed September 13, 2006.



     Anthony Muhammad, pro se.

     Thomas M. Rath, for respondent.



     RUWE, Judge:   This case was heard pursuant to section 74631

in effect when the petition was filed.    The decision to be

entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion

should not be cited as authority.




     1
       Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue. Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                               - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency of $6,489 in petitioner’s

2003 Federal income tax and an accuracy-related penalty of

$1,297.80 under section 6662(a).   After concessions by both

parties,2 the issues for decision are:   (1) Whether petitioner is

entitled to claimed itemized deductions for charitable

contributions totaling $8,500 for 2003 and (2) whether petitioner

is liable for the accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section

6662(a) as determined by respondent.

     Some facts have been stipulated and are so found.     The

stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated

by this reference.   At the time of filing the petition,

petitioner resided in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

     Petitioner’s tax return for 2003 was prepared by Chester

Muhammad.   On his return, petitioner reported an adjusted gross

income of $34,775.   Petitioner deducted charitable contributions

totaling $8,500 in 2003.

     Petitioner had a checking account during 2003.    However,

petitioner made no contributions by check and presented no

canceled checks or receipts to establish his alleged

contributions.   Petitioner offered two documents to substantiate

the purported contributions at trial.    One is an undated and


     2
       The parties have agreed that the amount disallowed for
Schedule C expenses is $5,280, comprising $2,880 for car and
truck expenses, $1,600 for depreciation, and $800 for other
expenses. Petitioner also conceded that he is not entitled to an
education credit and that his filing status is single for 2003.
                               - 3 -

unsigned list of contributions totaling $8,500 written on what

appears to be Muhammad Mosque No. 12 letterhead.       The other is a

faxed letter and a copy of the same list of contributions.      The

letter was purportedly sent from the former secretary of the

Muhammad Mosque No. 12, Laverne Muhammad, on May 19, 2006, a few

weeks before trial.   May 19, 2006, was the same date respondent

received the list for the first time.     The contributions shown on

these documents are as follows:

                 SAVIOURS’ DAY (FEB)       $2,500.00
                 NO.2 POOR CHARITY         $2,000.00
                 OBLIGATORY CHARITY        $1,800.00
                 MOSQUE NO 12 BLDG FUND    $1,195.00
                 LOCAL MINISTER CHARITY      $705.00
                 LOCAL CHARITY               $195.00
                 3 YEAR ECONOMIC PLAN        $105.00
                                           $8,500.00

These documents show neither the dates nor the amounts of the

individual contributions.

                            Discussion

     As a general rule, the Commissioner’s determinations set

forth in a notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and the

taxpayer bears the burden of proving that these 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 issues may shift to the Commissioner where the taxpayer

introduces credible evidence and complies with substantiation

requirements, maintains records, and cooperates fully with

reasonable requests for witnesses, documents, and other
                                - 4 -

information.    Petitioner has not met the requirements of section

7491(a) because he has not met the substantiation requirements or

introduced credible evidence regarding the deductions at issue.

1.   Charitable Deductions

     Deductions are strictly a matter of legislative grace and

the taxpayer bears the burden of proving entitlement to the

claimed deduction.   Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner,

503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292

U.S. 435, 440 (1934).   Section 170(a) allows as a deduction any

charitable contribution the payment of which is made within the

taxable year.   Deductions for charitable contributions are

allowable only if verified under regulations prescribed by the

Secretary.   Sec. 170(a)(1).   In general, the regulations require

a taxpayer to maintain for each contribution one of the

following:   (1) A canceled check; (2) a receipt from the donee;3

or, in the absence of a check or receipt, (3) other reliable

written records.   Sec. 1.170A-13(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.   Section

1.170A-13(a)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs., provides special rules to

determine the reliability of records on the basis of all the

facts and circumstances of the particular case and further

provides factors to consider in making this determination,

including:   (1) Whether the writing that evidences the


     3
       A receipt is required to contain the name of the donee,
the date of the contribution, and the amount of the contribution.
Sec. 1.170A-13(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.
                               - 5 -

contribution was written contemporaneously and (2) whether the

taxpayer keeps regular records of the contributions.

     Any charitable contribution of more than $250 must further

be substantiated by “a contemporaneous written acknowledgment of

the contribution by the donee organization”.    Sec. 170(f)(8).

“Separate contributions of less than $250 are not subject to the

requirements of section 170(f)(8), regardless of whether the sum

of the contributions made by a taxpayer to a donee organization

during a taxable year equals $250 or more.”    Sec. 1.170A-

13(f)(1), Income Tax Regs.

     Petitioner testified that because he had made all of his

contributions in cash to Muhammad Mosque No. 12, there were no

canceled checks.   Petitioner offered no evidence of the specific

dates and amounts of the contributions.   Petitioner claimed that

he had been given receipts for each contribution made; however,

he failed to keep them because he knew he would receive a

statement at the end of the year.   As previously discussed, the

only documentation that petitioner offered to substantiate his

charitable contributions was an undated list and a recently faxed

copy thereof from the Muhammad Mosque No. 12.    Most of the

amounts shown on the documents that petitioner submitted exceed

$250.   Petitioner testified that the amounts shown on the

documents are totals and that his contributions were made at

various times and in various amounts during the year, but there
                                - 6 -

is nothing in the record regarding the amounts or dates of the

individual contributions that comprise those amounts.

     We find that petitioner failed to provide reliable evidence

of his purported contributions and failed to meet his burden of

proof.   We hold that respondent’s determinations disallowing

petitioner’s claimed charitable contribution deductions are

sustained.

2.   Section 6662(a)

     With respect to the accuracy-related penalty under section

6662(a), the Commissioner has the burden of production.      Sec.

7491(c).    To prevail, the Commissioner must produce sufficient

evidence that it is appropriate to apply the penalty to the

taxpayer.    Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001).

Once the Commissioner meets his burden of production, the

taxpayer bears the burden of supplying sufficient evidence to

persuade the Court that the Commissioner’s determination is

incorrect.    Id. at 447.

     Section 6662(a) provides an accuracy-related penalty equal

to 20 percent of the underpayment required to be shown on a

return due to negligence or disregard of rules or regulations.

Sec. 6662(b)(1).    For purposes of section 6662, the term

“negligence” includes “any failure to make a reasonable attempt

to comply with the provisions of * * * [the Code], and the term

‘disregard’ includes any careless, reckless, or intentional
                                 - 7 -

disregard.”    Sec. 6662(c).   “Negligence” also includes any

failure by a taxpayer to keep adequate books and records or to

substantiate items properly.     Sec. 1.6662-3(b), Income Tax Regs.

     An accuracy-related penalty is not imposed with respect to

any portion of the underpayment as to which the taxpayer acted

with reasonable cause and in good faith.       Sec. 6664(c)(1); see

Higbee v. Commissioner, supra at 448.       This determination is made

based on all the relevant facts and circumstances.         Higbee v.

Commissioner, supra at 448; sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.

“Relevant factors include the taxpayer’s efforts to assess his

proper tax liability, including the taxpayer’s reasonable and

good faith reliance on the advice of a professional such as an

accountant.”    Higbee v. Commissioner, supra at 448-449.

     Petitioner has failed to keep or produce adequate records.

Respondent has provided sufficient evidence to meet his burden of

production.    Petitioner has not produced evidence to prove that

respondent’s determination of negligence is incorrect.        We hold

that petitioner is liable for the accuracy-related penalty under

section 6662.

     To reflect the foregoing,

                                              Decision will be entered

                                         under Rule 155.
