                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2011-96



                       UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                   JOHN ALRIDGE, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 22458-09S.              Filed July 25, 2011.



     John Alridge, pro se.

     Gerald Semasek, for respondent.



     CHIECHI, Judge:    This case was heard pursuant to the provi-

sions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when

the petition was filed.1   Pursuant to section 7463(b), the deci-

sion to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this

opinion shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.


     1
      Hereinafter, all section references are to the Internal
Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the year at issue. All Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                               - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency in, and an addition under

section 6651(a) to, petitioner’s Federal income tax (tax) for his

taxable year 2005 of $3,913 and $1,127.75, respectively.

     The issues remaining for decision for petitioner’s taxable

year 2005 are:

     (1) Is petitioner entitled to deduct certain claimed busi-

ness expenses under section 162(a)?     We hold that he is not.

     (2) Is petitioner liable for the addition to tax under

section 6651(a)(1) for failure to file timely his tax return?       We

hold that he is.

                            Background

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

     Petitioner resided in Maryland at the time he filed the

petition.

     During 2005, the year at issue, petitioner was self-employed

as a realtor and provided services in that capacity for Long &

Foster Realty Co. (Long & Foster).     During 2005, Long & Foster

paid petitioner total nonemployee compensation of $21,745 and

reported that nonemployee compensation in Form 1099-MISC, Miscel-

laneous Income (Form 1099-MISC), that it issued to him for that

year.   Petitioner maintained no books, records, or other docu-

ments with respect to his business as a self-employed realtor.

     Petitioner requested, and was granted, an extension of time

to file his tax return for his taxable year 2005 on or before
                                - 3 -

October 15, 2006.   Petitioner did not file Form 1040, U.S.

Individual Income Tax Return, for his taxable year 2005 (2005

return) until September 6, 2007.   Petitioner did not retain a

copy of that return.

     As of the time of the trial, respondent had been unable to

locate the 2005 return that petitioner filed or a copy thereof.

Respondent, however, maintained a computer transcript with

respect to petitioner’s taxable year 2005 (2005 transcript).

That transcript, a so-called RTVUE transcript, was a document

that the Internal Revenue Service prepared and that was to

reflect the various entries that petitioner made in his 2005

return.

     The 2005 transcript showed that petitioner reported in his

2005 return $846 of “TAX-EXEMPT INTEREST” on line 8b and $14,159

of “OTHER INCOME” on line 21.   According to the 2005 transcript,

petitioner reported no wages or other income and no self-employ-

ment tax in his 2005 return and did not include Schedule C,

Profit or Loss From Business (Schedule C), as part of that

return.

     Respondent issued to petitioner a notice of deficiency for

his taxable year 2005 (2005 notice).    In that notice, respondent

determined, inter alia, to include $21,745 as business income

from Schedule C (Schedule C business income) for petitioner’s
                               - 4 -

taxable year 2005.2   In the 2005 notice, respondent also deter-

mined to impose an addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) for

petitioner’s failure to file timely his 2005 return.

                            Discussion

     Petitioner bears the burden of proving that the determina-

tions in the 2005 notice are erroneous.3   See Rule 142(a); Welch

v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).

     Petitioner concedes that he received during 2005 from Long &

Foster $21,745 of self-employment income (i.e., Schedule C

business income) for the work that he did during that year as a

realtor for that company.   He claims, however, that he is enti-

tled to deduct as business expenses for his taxable year 2005

certain expenses that he paid during that year in performing that

work, including amounts expended for insurance, mileage, market-




     2
      Long & Foster had reported the $21,745, which respondent
determined in the 2005 notice to include in petitioner’s total
income as Schedule C business income, in Form 1099-MISC that it
issued to petitioner for his taxable year 2005. That $21,745
included the $14,159 that petitioner had reported as “OTHER
INCOME” in his 2005 return. As a result, respondent further
determined in the 2005 notice to eliminate from petitioner’s
total income that $14,159.
     3
      Petitioner does not claim that the burden of proof shifts
to respondent under sec. 7491(a). On the record before us, we
conclude that the burden of proof does not shift to respondent
under that section. See id.
                              - 5 -

ing, stamps, and other expenses associated with being a realtor.4

Respondent disagrees.

     Section 162(a) generally allows a deduction for ordinary and

necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in

carrying on any trade or business.5   Deductions are a matter of

legislative grace, and petitioner bears the burden of proving

entitlement to any deduction claimed.   See INDOPCO, Inc. v.

Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992).   The Code and the regula-

tions thereunder require petitioner to maintain records suffi-

cient to establish the amount of any deduction claimed.   See sec.

6001; sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.




     4
      In the petition, petitioner alleged total deductible busi-
ness expenses of $6,339 for his taxable year 2005, even though
the difference between the $21,745 of Schedule C business income
that petitioner received during that year and the $14,159 of
“OTHER INCOME” that he reported on his 2005 return is $7,586.
Petitioner contends that he claimed those business expenses in
Schedule C, which he maintains he included with the 2005 return
that he filed. Respondent denies having received Schedule C from
petitioner for petitioner’s taxable year 2005. Regardless of
whether petitioner included the claimed business expenses in
Schedule C and whether he filed Schedule C with his 2005 return,
a tax return is merely a statement of the claim of the person
filing the return and does not establish the truth of the matters
set forth therein. See, e.g., Wilkinson v. Commissioner, 71 T.C.
633, 639 (1979). As discussed below, petitioner must establish
his entitlement to any deduction claimed.
     5
      For certain expenses otherwise deductible under sec.
162(a), such as business expenses relating to “listed property”,
including passenger automobiles, see sec. 280F(d)(4)(A)(i),
petitioner must satisfy the substantiation requirements set forth
in sec. 274(d) before such expenses will be allowed as deduc-
tions. See sec. 274(d).
                               - 6 -

     In support of his position that he is entitled to deduct the

claimed business expenses at issue, petitioner relies on his

testimony.   We found the testimony of petitioner to be in certain

material respects general, vague, conclusory, uncorroborated, and

self-serving.   We shall not rely on the testimony of petitioner

to establish his position that he is entitled to deduct the

claimed business expenses for his taxable year 2005.   See, e.g.,

Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).

     We have found that petitioner maintained no books, records,

or other documents with respect to his business as a self-em-

ployed realtor.6   Petitioner has failed to present any reliable

evidence to establish (1) the amount and/or the nature of each of

the business expenses that he is claiming for his taxable year

2005 and (2) that he paid each of those expenses during that

year.

     Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,

we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of estab-

lishing that he is entitled for his taxable year 2005 to deduct

under section 162(a) the business expenses that he is claiming.7


     6
      Although petitioner testified that he maintained a mileage
log with respect to travel as a realtor, he failed to proffer any
such log at trial.
     7
      Assuming arguendo that we had found that petitioner had
carried his burden of establishing for his taxable year 2005 his
entitlement to deductions under sec. 162(a) with respect to
certain expenses subject to sec. 274(d), petitioner would still
                                                   (continued...)
                                - 7 -

      We turn now to the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for failure to file

timely a tax return.    Respondent bears the burden of production

with respect to the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) that

respondent determined for petitioner’s taxable year 2005.   See

sec. 7491(c); Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446–447

(2001).   To satisfy respondent’s burden of production, respondent

must come forward with “sufficient evidence indicating that it is

appropriate to impose” the addition to tax.    Higbee v. Commis-

sioner, supra at 446.    Although respondent bears the burden of

production with respect to the addition to tax under section

6651(a)(1) that respondent determined, respondent “need not

introduce evidence regarding reasonable cause * * *. * * * the

taxpayer bears the burden of proof with regard to” that issue.

Id.

      Petitioner requested, and was granted, an extension of time

to file his 2005 return on or before October 15, 2006.   Peti-

tioner did not file his 2005 return until September 6, 2007.     On

the record before us, we find that respondent has satisfied

respondent’s burden of production under section 7491(c) with




      7
      (...continued)
have to satisfy the requirements of sec. 274(d) with respect to
those expenses. On the record before us, we find that petitioner
has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he satisfies
those requirements.
                                 - 8 -

respect to the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) that

respondent determined in the 2005 notice.

     The addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1) does not apply

if the failure to file timely is due to reasonable cause, and not

due to willful neglect.   See sec. 6651(a)(1).   At trial, peti-

tioner failed to present any evidence to establish that his

failure to file timely his 2005 return was due to reasonable

cause, and not due to willful neglect.

     Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,

we find that petitioner has failed to carry his burden of estab-

lishing that his failure to file timely his 2005 return was due

to reasonable cause, and not due to willful neglect.    On that

record, we further find that petitioner is liable for his taxable

year 2005 for the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(1).

     We have considered all of petitioner’s contentions and

arguments that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be

without merit, irrelevant, and/or moot.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                           Decision will be entered

                                      for respondent.
