                          T.C. Memo. 2010-167



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  ETTA M. LOWERY, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 20656-08.                Filed August 2, 2010.



     Etta M. Lowery, pro se.

     Marty J. Dama, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

     VASQUEZ, Judge:     Respondent determined the following

deficiencies in and penalties with respect to petitioner’s

Federal income taxes:

                                        Penalty
          Year      Deficiency        Sec. 6662(a)

          2003          $53,265        $10,653.00
          2004           26,903          5,380.60
          2005           62,991         12,598.20
                               - 2 -

     Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code (Code) in effect for the years in

issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of

Practice and Procedure.

     After concessions by respondent,1 the issues for decision

are whether petitioner:   (1) Is entitled to deduct amounts

received as compensation for services from Allstate Insurance Co.

(Allstate) and First Command Financial Planning (First Command)

as other miscellaneous deductions (miscellaneous itemized

deductions) claimed on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, for 2003,

2004, and 2005; (2) is entitled to deduct expenses for her home

health care business claimed on Schedule C, Profit or Loss from

Business, for 2003 and 2004; (3) must include in her 2004 gross

income the distribution to her from the Savings and Profit

Sharing Fund of Allstate Employees (the distribution); (4) is

liable for a 10-percent additional tax under section 72(t) for


     1
        Respondent concedes income tax adjustments of $2,121 and
$5,118 for 2004 and 2005, respectively.

     The self-employment tax and related deductions and the
amount of petitioner’s personal exemption are computational
matters. See secs. 151, 164(f), 1401, 1402.

     Petitioner argued in her pretrial memorandum and at trial
that the Court did not have jurisdiction and respondent must
pursue the return of the refunds under sec. 7405. On brief,
however, she advanced no argument in support of this contention;
it is therefore deemed abandoned. See Mendes v. Commissioner,
121 T.C. 308, 312-313 (2003).
                                 - 3 -

the distribution; and (5) is liable for a section 6662(a)

accuracy-related penalty for each of the years 2003, 2004, and

2005.

                          FINDINGS OF FACT

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

The stipulation of facts and the accompanying exhibits are

incorporated by this reference.    At the time the petition was

filed, petitioner resided in Texas.

     Petitioner worked for Allstate as a sales manager in 2003

and as a district manager in 2004 and part of 2005.    She worked

for First Command for the remainder of 2005.    In 2003, 2004, and

2005 petitioner received $123,533, $126,820, and $226,155,

respectively, as compensation.    Petitioner included these amounts

in her Federal income tax returns for 2003, 2004, and 2005 and

claimed miscellaneous itemized deductions in equal amounts.2

     Petitioner also claimed $24,200 in Schedule C deductions for

expenses related to her home herbal health care business for

2003.    Her deductions were claimed for advertising expenses,

automobile expenses, supplies, travel, meals and entertainment,

and other expenses.    She claimed her house had been flooded and

therefore she could not recover any receipts from 2003.    She did


     2
        Petitioner claimed total Schedule A itemized deductions
of $154,949, $131,573, and $286,877 for 2003, 2004, and 2005,
respectively. Respondent disallowed miscellaneous itemized
deductions of $124,256, $127,413, and $288,537 for 2003, 2004,
and 2005, respectively.
                               - 4 -

not give respondent’s revenue agent, Cathy Street (Ms. Street),

the names of her suppliers or other information to reconstruct

the claimed expenses.   She also claimed $250 in Schedule C

deductions for 2004.

     Petitioner received from the Savings and Profit Sharing Fund

of Allstate Employees a distribution of $26,800 by check dated

April 30, 2004.   Petitioner deposited the check into her

interest-bearing checking account at Bank of America.   She was 48

years old when she received the distribution.   Petitioner did not

include the distribution in her income for 2004.   Ms. Street

issued a summons to petitioner’s bank to obtain bank records and

performed a bank account analysis to identify the source of the

deposit.

     At trial petitioner claimed “Allstate Insurance Company is

not a trade or business.”   She also disputed the “W-2s and 1099

information” on the grounds that:

     Allstate Insurance Company, First Command Financial
     Planning, and Etta Lowery do not fit within the
     specific kind and class expressly itemized in the
     definition of trade or business under 7701(a)(26) nor
     does Etta Lowery fit within the specific kind and
     class expressly in the definition of employee, 3401(c),
     and in the Federal Register, on Tuesday, September 7,
     1943, at page 12267 Section 404.101.

      We advised petitioner that her arguments were frivolous and

warned her that the Court might impose a penalty under section

6673(a)(1) if she continued to assert such arguments.
                                  - 5 -

                                 OPINION

I.    Burden of Proof

       As a general rule, the taxpayer bears the burden of proving

the Commissioner’s deficiency determinations incorrect.        Rule

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

6201(d) provides that if the taxpayer, in a court proceeding,

asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to the income reported

on an information return and has fully cooperated with the

Commissioner, then the Commissioner shall have the burden of

producing reasonable and probative information in addition to the

information return.      In addition, section 7491(a) provides that

if the taxpayer introduces credible evidence and meets certain

other prerequisites, the Commissioner shall bear the burden of

proof with respect to factual issues relating to the taxpayer’s

liability for a tax imposed under subtitle A or B of the Code.

       Petitioner has not raised a reasonable dispute within the

meaning of section 6201(d).     She has also failed to introduce any

credible evidence or substantiate her deductions as required by

section 7491(a).   Therefore, petitioner bears the burden of

proof.

II.   Deductions

       Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and taxpayers

have the burden of showing that they are entitled to any

deduction claimed.      Rule 142(a); New Colonial Ice Co. v.
                                - 6 -

Helvering, 292 U.S. 435, 440 (1934).    Taxpayers are required to

maintain records that are sufficient to enable the Commissioner

to determine their correct tax liability.      Sec. 6001; sec.

1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.    Additionally, taxpayers bear the

burden of substantiating the amount and purpose of the item

claimed as a deduction.    Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 89

(1975), affd. per curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976).

     A.    Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions

     Petitioner argues that her compensation from Allstate and

First Command is deductible as a miscellaneous itemized deduction

because neither Allstate nor First Command is a trade or

business.    She also claims that she herself is not a trade or

business and that she is not an employee of Allstate or First

Command.

     Petitioner advances shopworn arguments characteristic of

tax-protester rhetoric that have been universally rejected by

this and other courts.    See Stearman v. Commissioner, 436 F.3d

533 (5th Cir. 2006), affg. T.C. Memo. 2005-39.      We shall not

painstakingly address petitioner’s assertions “with somber

reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might

suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.”      See

Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984).

Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s disallowance of the

miscellaneous itemized deductions.
                                      - 7 -

       B.     Schedule C Deductions

       Petitioner did not substantiate any of her Schedule C

deductions.       Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s disallowance of

the Schedule C deductions.

III.       The Distribution

       Generally, a distribution from a qualified retirement plan

is includable in the distributee’s gross income in the year of

the distribution.       Sec. 72(a).    Section 72(t)(1) imposes a 10-

percent additional tax on the taxable amount of an early

distribution from a qualified retirement plan (as defined in

section 4974(c))3 unless an exception applies.        A distribution is

early if made to an employee who has not attained age 59-1/2.

Sec. 72(t)(2)(A)(i).

       Petitioner was 48 years old when she received the

distribution in 2004.4        Petitioner did not offer any evidence of

an applicable exception.        We therefore sustain respondent’s

determinations that the distribution is includable in

petitioner’s income for 2004 and that she is liable for the 10-

percent additional tax.        See Rule 142(a).


       3
        The term “qualified retirement plan” includes a plan
described in sec. 401(a). Sec. 4974(c)(1).
       4
        Regardless of whether the additional tax under sec. 72(t)
is a penalty or an additional amount for which the respondent
would have the burden of production under sec. 7491(c),
respondent has satisfied any such burden by showing petitioner
was not 59-1/2 when she received the distribution. See Milner v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-111 n.2.
                               - 8 -

IV.   Section 6662(a) Accuracy-Related Penalty

      Pursuant to section 6662(a) and (b)(1) and (2), taxpayers

may be liable for a penalty of 20 percent of the portion of an

underpayment of tax due to negligence or disregard of rules or

regulations or attributable to a substantial understatement of

income tax.   The term “understatement” means the excess of the

amount of tax required to be shown on a return over the amount of

tax imposed which is shown on the return, reduced by any rebate

(within the meaning of section 6211(b)(2)).   Sec. 6662(d)(2)(A).

Generally, an understatement is a “substantial understatement”

when it exceeds the greater of $5,000 or 10 percent of the amount

of tax required to be shown on the return.    Sec. 6662(d)(1)(A).

In addition, section 6662(c) defines “negligence” as any failure

to make a reasonable attempt to comply with the provisions of the

Code, and “disregard” means any careless, reckless, or

intentional disregard.

      The Commissioner has the burden of production with respect

to the accuracy-related penalty.   Sec. 7491(c).   To meet this

burden, the Commissioner must produce sufficient evidence

indicating that it is appropriate to impose the penalty.    See

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

Commissioner meets this burden of production, the taxpayer must

come forward with persuasive evidence that the Commissioner’s
                                - 9 -

determination is incorrect.   Rule 142(a); see Higbee v.

Commissioner, supra at 447.

     Whether otherwise applied because of a substantial

understatement of income tax or negligence or disregard of rules

or regulations, the 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.    See sec.

6664(c)(1).   The decision as to whether the taxpayer acted with

reasonable cause and in good faith depends upon all the pertinent

facts and circumstances.   See 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.   See id.   Further, an honest misunderstanding of fact

or law that is reasonable in light of the experience, knowledge,

and education of the taxpayer may indicate reasonable cause and

good faith.   See Remy v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-72.

     Respondent has satisfied the burden of production.

Petitioner’s 2003, 2004, and 2005 income tax returns contain

understatements of tax greater than $5,000 and greater than 10

percent of the amount of tax required to be shown on the returns.

Sec. 6662(d)(1)(A).

     Petitioner did not offer any evidence of reasonable cause or

good faith.   Accordingly, we sustain respondent’s determination
                              - 10 -

as to the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties for 2003,

2004, and 2005.

V.   Section 6673(a)(1) Penalty

      Section 6673(a)(1) authorizes the Court to impose a penalty

not to exceed $25,000 if the taxpayer took frivolous or

groundless positions in the proceeding or instituted the

proceeding primarily for delay.   A taxpayer’s position is

“frivolous” if it is “contrary to established law and unsupported

by a reasoned, colorable argument for change in the law.”

Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 71 (7th Cir. 1986).

      We warned petitioner that her arguments were frivolous and

have been universally rejected by this and other courts.     We

further advised petitioner that the Court has the discretion to

impose a penalty of up to $25,000 if she were to proceed with

such arguments.

      Although respondent has not moved for a section 6673(a)(1)

penalty, and we decline to impose the penalty at this time, we

take this opportunity to warn petitioner that we may impose this

penalty if she returns to the Court and proceeds in a similar

manner in the future.   See Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576

(2000).

      In reaching all of our holdings herein, we have considered

all arguments made by the parties, and to the extent not
                             - 11 -

mentioned above, we conclude they are irrelevant or without

merit.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                        Decision will be entered

                                   under Rule 155.
