                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2002-71



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                  JOSEPH B. ZINN, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 6261-01S.                Filed June 12, 2002.


     Joseph B. Zinn, pro se.

     Frank Jackson, for respondent.


     GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge:   This case was heard pursuant

to the provisions of section 7463 of the Internal Revenue Code in

effect at the time 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.   Unless otherwise indicated,

subsequent section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the year in issue, and all Rule references are to the

Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal

income tax for the taxable year 1998 of $1,349.

     The issue is whether petitioner failed to include in income

certain U.S. Treasury bill interest and original issue discount

income.    An adjustment to Social Security annuity income is

computational and will be resolved by the Court’s holding in this

case.

     The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.      At the time the petition

was filed, petitioner resided in New York, New York.

     In 1998, petitioner owned a number of Treasury marketable

securities (including bills and an inflation-indexed debt

instrument), of which the following are in issue:

          CUSIP No.                Par Amount
          9127944T8                     $20,000
          9127944U5                     $20,000
          9127944WJ                     $25,000
          9127945A8                     $20,000
          9128272M3                     $15,000


     The Department of Treasury, Bureau of Public Debt (the

Bureau), provided the following information regarding the

Treasury bills and inflation-indexed debt instrument which is

part of the record of this case:
                                    - 3 -

Treasury Bills

                                   Purchase/               Refund/
              Par      Purchase      Issue     Maturity   Interest
CUSIP No.   Amount       Price       Date        Date      Payment
9127944T8   $20,000   $18,855.40   04/03/97    04/02/98   $1,144.60
9127944U5   $20,000   18,843.20    05/01/97    04/30/98   1,156.80
9127944WJ   $25,000   23,642.75    06/26/97    06/25/98   1,385.25
9127945A8   $20,000   18,948.40    10/16/97    10/15/98   1,051.60



Inflation-Indexed Debt Instrument
                                                                      Original
                                                                        Issue
                                                          Original    Discount
              Par      Purchase      Issue     Maturity     Issue     Reporting
CUSIP No.   Amount       Price       Date        Date     Discount     Period
9128272M3   $15,000   $14,922.30   02/06/97    01/15/07     227.25    12/31/97-
                                                                      12/31/98

     Petitioner timely filed his 1998 tax return without

reporting the interest income or original issue discount income

listed above.

     Respondent issued a notice of deficiency determining that

petitioner received interest income totaling $4,927 upon the

maturation of four U.S. Treasury bills in 1998 and the receipt of

original issue discount income representing an increase in value

of the inflation-indexed debt instrument in 1998.              The

Commissioner relied on Forms 1099 furnished by the Bureau to

determine the omitted income in question.

     Petitioner contends that the U.S. Treasury instruments in

issue did not mature in 1998, but rather were purchased in 1998,

and, therefore, are not includable in income in 1998.
                                - 4 -

Furthermore, at trial he no longer had any records pertaining to

these securities.

     The law is clear.   Gross income includes all income from

whatever source derived.    Sec. 61(a).   Section 61(a)(4)

specifically includes income derived from interest.     It is

required under Federal law that taxpayers maintain adequate and

accurate tax records.    Sec. 6001.

     Under the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure,

petitioner generally bears the burden of proof.     Rule 142.

However, section 6201(d) provides that where a taxpayer asserts a

reasonable dispute in any Court proceeding with respect to any

item of income reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, or

Form 1099 by a third party and the taxpayer has fully cooperated

with the Secretary, then the Secretary shall have the burden of

producing reasonable probative information to support the

deficiency.   Assuming petitioner has asserted a reasonable

dispute over the accuracy of the information return (e.g., Form

1099) and has fully cooperated, respondent has met the burden of

producing probative evidence which was received in the record

(e.g., Bureau of Public Debt information).     Furthermore,

petitioner failed to introduce any credible evidence; thus, he

failed to meet the requirements of section 7491(a), as amended,

so as to place the burden of proof on respondent with respect to

any factual issue relevant in ascertaining liability for the tax
                                - 5 -

deficiency in issue.    Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438

(2001).

     According to Form PDF 5329 provided by the Bureau, “interest

received from Treasury bills is the difference between the

purchase price and the redemption amount -- not the discount

payment received when a bill is issued.    Therefore, INTEREST FROM

BILLS IS TAXABLE AND REPORTABLE TO THE IRS FOR THE YEAR THE BILL

MATURES.”    Accord Vance v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-95.

     Despite petitioner’s contention that the U.S. Treasury bills

in issue were purchased in 1998, evidence in the record clearly

shows that the bills were indeed purchased in 1997 and matured in

1998.    We find that petitioner failed to report the interest

income on the Treasury bills as shown above.    Accordingly,

respondent is sustained as to the interest on the U.S. Treasury

bills.

     Under section 1272(a)(1), there shall be included in the

gross income of the holder of any debt instrument having original

issue discount issued after July 1, 1982, the sum of the daily

portions of the original issue discount for each day during the

taxable year on which he held the debt instrument.    The term

“debt instrument” includes inflation-indexed debt instruments.

Sec. 1275(a); sec. 1.1275-7(a), Income Tax Regs.    Section 1.1275-

7(a), Income Tax Regs., provides two methods to calculate the

original issue discount on inflation-indexed debt instruments:
                               - 6 -

The coupon bond method or the discount bond method.     In this

case, the coupon method applies to petitioner’s inflation-indexed

debt instrument.   Sec. 1.1275-7(d), Income Tax Regs.    The Bureau

provided the following information as to petitioner’s inflation-

indexed debt instrument, CUSIP 9128272M3, which was received into

evidence:

          The value of the Inflation-Indexed security keeps
     pace with inflation and rises along with it. However,
     if deflation prevails over the life of the security,
     the investor is guaranteed the original par amount of
     the security at maturity. The Original Issue Discount
     amount of $227.25, reported in 1998, represents how
     much the security’s value increased because of
     inflation, even though the investor will not receive
     the inflated principal until maturity.

     Petitioner failed to offer any evidence or testimony to

support his contention that the inflation-indexed debt income is

not includable in income during 1998.    Accordingly, we find that

the income accrued in 1998 on the inflation-indexed debt is

includable in petitioner’s income.

     We have considered all arguments by the parties, and, to the

extent not discussed above, conclude that they are irrelevant or

without merit.

     Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case

Division.

                                       Decision will be entered

                                for respondent.
