                                 T.C. Memo. 2013-248



                           UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                      EDWARD J. FINE, Petitioner v.
             COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



      Docket No. 1713-12.                         Filed October 29, 2013.



      Edward J. Fine, pro se.

      Timothy Froehle, for respondent.



               MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


      HAINES, Judge: Respondent determined a $3,4621 deficiency in

petitioner’s Federal income tax for 2009. After concessions,2 the sole issue for

      1
          All amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.
      2
      Petitioner concedes he failed to report $13 of dividend income.
Respondent concedes petitioner’s gambling losses equal his gambling income.
Respondent also concedes petitioner was at least 65 years old on the last day of
                                                                      (continued...)
                                         -2-

[*2] decision is whether petitioner is entitled to an itemized deduction for home

mortgage interest. We hold he is not.

                               FINDINGS OF FACT

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

facts and the supplemental stipulation of facts, together with the attached exhibits,

are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in California when the

petition was filed.

      Petitioner filed a Federal income tax return for 2009. On the Schedule A,

Itemized Deductions, attached to petitioner’s return, he claimed a $13,334

deduction for home mortgage interest. Respondent issued petitioner a deficiency

notice disallowing the claimed mortgage interest deduction. Petitioner filed a

petition with this Court contesting the deficiency notice.




      2
        (...continued)
petitioner’s 2009 tax year and further concedes therefore that petitioner is entitled
to an additional exemption. See sec. 1.151-1(c), Income Tax Regs.
                                        -3-

[*3]                                 OPINION

I. Burden of Proof

       Generally, the Commissioner’s determinations are presumed correct, and the

taxpayer bears the burden of proving otherwise. Rule 142(a);3 see Welch v.

Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). The burden of proof may shift to the

Commissioner if the taxpayer proves that he or she has satisfied certain

requirements. Sec. 7491(a); see Baker v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 143, 168

(2004). Petitioner has neither claimed that the burden shifts to respondent nor

shown that he complied with the requirements of section 7491(a). The burden of

proof, therefore, remains on petitioner. See Rule 142(a).

II. Home Mortgage Interest Deduction

       Petitioner claims he is entitled to a home mortgage interest deduction for

2009. Subject to certain limitations not applicable here, a taxpayer is generally

allowed to deduct home mortgage interest paid within the taxable year. See sec.

163(a), (h)(2)(D). Deductions, however, are a matter of legislative grace, and a

taxpayer bears the burden of proving that he has complied with the specific

requirements for any deduction claimed. INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503

       3
       Unless otherwise indicated, all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules
of Practice and Procedure, and all section references are to the Internal Revenue
Code, as amended and in effect for the year at issue.
                                       -4-

[*4] U.S. 79, 84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440

(1934); see also Rule 142(a). Taxpayers bear the burden of substantiating the

amount of any claimed deduction by maintaining the records needed to establish

entitlement. See sec. 6001; Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87 (1975), aff’d,

540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976). A taxpayer’s self-serving declaration is generally

not a sufficient substitute for records. Weiss v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

1999-17.

      Petitioner failed to present any documentation or other credible evidence

showing that he paid home mortgage interest in 2009. Petitioner, rather, offered

only his own self-serving and uncorroborated testimony. We are not required to

accept such testimony, nor do we here. See Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C.

74, 77 (1986). Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof. Accordingly, we

sustain respondent’s determination to disallow the $13,334 home mortgage

interest deduction.

      In reaching our holdings herein, we have considered all arguments made,

and, to the extent not mentioned above, we conclude they are moot, irrelevant, or

without merit.
                                 -5-

[*5] To reflect the foregoing,


                                            Decision will be entered under

                                       Rule 155.
