                    T.C. Summary Opinion 2009-90



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



           LISA AND BRIAN A. SYMONETTE, Petitioners v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 13403-06S.             Filed June 8, 2009.



     Brian A. Symonette, pro se.

     Brian A. Pfeifer, for respondent.



     CHABOT, Judge:   This case was heard pursuant to section

7463.1   The decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other

court, and this opinion shall not be treated as a precedent for

any other case.   Sec. 7463(b).


     1
      Unless indicated otherwise, all chapter and section
references are to chapters and sections of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 as in effect for the year in issue, except as to
sec. 7463, which is as in effect for proceedings commenced on the
date the petition in the instant case was filed.
                                 - 2 -

     Respondent determined deficiencies in Federal individual

income tax and an accuracy-related penalty under section 66622

against petitioners for 2003 as follows:

                                                      Penalty
           Petitioner            Deficiency          Sec. 6662

     Lisa Symonette               $2,039                 --
                                  1
     Brian A. Symonette             5,346            $1,069.20
           1
           Of this amount, $5,063 is income tax under ch. 1
     and $283 is self-employment tax under ch. 2.

     Petitioners had filed separate tax returns for 2003, and the

notices of deficiency were prepared with respect to those tax

returns.   After they filed the separate tax returns and before

the notices of deficiency were issued, petitioners filed a Form

1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, constituting a

joint tax return for 2003.3   As a result (1) we consult

petitioners’ separate tax returns as necessary to understand

respondent’s determinations in the notices of deficiency, but (2)

redeterminations and computations shall be made with respect to

petitioners’ joint tax return.    For example:   Petitioner Lisa

Symonette (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Lisa) filed her


     2
      At trial respondent’s counsel clarified that the penalty is
for negligence or disregard of rules or regulations, and not for
any other category to which sec. 6662 applies.
     3
      None of the limitations set forth in sec. 6013(b)(2)
applies, and so the joint return is effective (respondent so
concedes) in accordance with sec. 6013(b)(1), and petitioners’
liabilities are joint and several. Sec. 6013(d)(3). See sec.
6017 and sec. 1.6017-1(b)(2), Income Tax Regs., as to the self-
employment taxes.
                              - 3 -

separate tax return claiming head of household status, and

petitioner Brian A. Symonette (hereinafter sometimes referred to

as Brian) filed his separate tax return claiming single status.

In the notices of deficiency respondent determined that each

petitioner should be treated as married filing separately.    As a

result of the parties’ stipulation as to the joint tax return and

the absence of any challenge to the effectiveness of that filing,

the joint tax return status supersedes both (a) the filing status

each petitioner claimed on his or her separate tax return and (b)

respondent’s determinations as to petitioners’ filing statuses.

     Another result of the foregoing is that (1) the joint

deficiency may be less than the sum of the separate deficiencies

determined in the notices of deficiency, but (2) the joint

deficiency may be greater than one or both of the separate

deficiencies determined in the notices of deficiency.   We treat

the parties’ agreement as to the effectiveness of the joint tax

return as satisfying the section 6214(a) requirement that

respondent claim an increased deficiency, but only to the extent

that (in the peculiar setting of the instant case) any such

increase results solely from the shift from separate tax returns

to a joint tax return.

     By answer, filed at the start of the trial session,

respondent asserted an increased deficiency (and correspondingly

increased section 6662(a) penalty) by disallowing all of the
                                - 4 -

items from Schedule E, Supplemental Income and Loss, that Brian

had claimed on his separate tax return and that respondent had

not disallowed in the original notice of deficiency to Brian.

This new disallowance was due to “the passive activity loss

limitations of I.R.C. § 469.”    In a sense, this superseded the

Schedule E adjustments in the notice of deficiency.    On brief

respondent concedes the matter raised in the answer, in effect

returning the Schedule E adjustments to their previous status.

     Respondent did not determine a section 6662 penalty in the

notice of deficiency issued to Lisa.    Accordingly, no section

6662 penalty attaches to any of the adjustments shown in the

notice of deficiency to Lisa even though those adjustments may be

taken into account in determining petitioners’ joint tax

liability.

     Lisa did not appear at the trial of this case.    We granted

respondent’s motion to dismiss as to Lisa, but ruled that, in

light of the superseding joint tax return, decision will be

entered as to Lisa in the same amount as decision is entered as

to Brian.    Lisa’s case has not been severed; thus she remains a

party in the instant case.   See DeLucia v. Commissioner, 87 T.C.

804 (1986).
                                - 5 -

       After concessions by both sides,4 the issues for decision5
are:


       4
      Petitioners concede that they are not entitled to the
following:

            (1) A $550 Schedule E cleaning and maintenance
       expense;

            (2) any deduction for business use of their home
       for the Computer Doctor business;

            (3) $2,500 of the claimed $4,000 deduction for IRA
       contributions on their joint tax return;

            (4) $31 of long-term capital loss.

     Respondent concedes that petitioners are entitled to the
following:

            (1) Schedule E insurance expense of $708;

            (2) a current deduction for $21.25 interest shown
       on the stipulated settlement for residential rental
       realty located in Miami, Fla.;

            (3) $2,708 of rent paid in connection with the Tax
       Doctor business;

            (4) a $600 child care credit; and

            (5) an additional mortgage interest deduction of
       $4,316.

Respondent has also conceded that certain payments were made but
not conceded the deductibility of the payments. Neither side has
enlightened the Court as to how the payments relate to any of the
issues before the Court.
       5
      The redetermination of Brian’s self-employment taxes
depends on concessions and resolutions of disputes as to his Tax
Doctor and Computer Doctor businesses.

     The redetermination of petitioners’ allowable deductions
claimed on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, depends on (1) the
law applicable to joint tax returns as distinguished from the
separate tax return status in the notices of deficiency, and (2)
the effect of concessions and resolutions of disputes on other
issues.
                               - 6 -

      (1) The proper treatment of specific components of
petitioners’ claimed loss from residential rental realty;
      (2) whether petitioners are entitled to disputed deductions
for Brian’s Tax Doctor business;
      (3) whether petitioners are entitled to disputed deductions
for Brian’s Computer Doctor business;
      (4) the proper treatment of the $1,500 Lisa contributed to
her IRA; and
      (5) whether petitioners are liable for an accuracy-related
penalty.
                            Background
      Petitioners resided in Florida when the petition in the

instant case was filed.   They were married as of December 31,

2003.

      For convenience, we will combine our findings and analysis

issue by issue.

                             Analysis

A.   In General

      In general, the Commissioner’s determinations as to matters

of fact in the notice of deficiency are presumed to be correct,

and the taxpayers have the burden of proving otherwise.     See Rule

142(a);6 Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).     Brian has

not contended that section 7491 applies so as to shift the burden

of proof; on the record in the instant case, if such a contention


      6
      Unless indicated otherwise, all Rule references are to the
Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                - 7 -

had been made, then we would have concluded that the requirements

of section 7491(a)(2) have not been met, and so the burden of

proof would not have been shifted.      But section 7491(c) imposes

on respondent the burden of production with respect to the

section 6662 penalty.    This will be dealt with infra section F,

Section 6662 Penalty.

B.   Schedule E

      On July 29, 2003, petitioners bought for $52,000 real

property in Miami, Florida, hereinafter sometimes referred to as

the Miami property.    They placed the Miami property in service as

residential rental property on or about September 1, 2003.

      On his separate tax return Brian claimed a loss of $12,494

from the Miami property and deducted this amount from unrelated

income.    The effect of respondent’s adjustments was to continue

to allow more than 60 percent of this claimed loss.     As a result

the dispute is not whether any deduction should be allowed, or

even whether any loss should be allowed against unrelated income.

See infra note 7.    Rather, the dispute is about the proper

treatment of specific components of the claimed loss.

      1.   Allocation Between Land and Building

      Respondent notes, and petitioners do not dispute, that the

cost of the Miami property must be allocated between the land and

the building.
                                - 8 -

     Respondent states as follows:

          Respondent is not challenging Petitioners [sic]
     allocation of the purchase price.4
            4
           Petitioner claimed a Schedule E depreciation
     deduction in the amount of $445. The total purchase
     price of the Miami property was $52,000. Using the
     applicable depreciation method and recovery period,
     Petitioners allocated $26,700 of the total purchase
     price to the basis of the Miami property subject to
     depreciation. $26,700 divided by $52,000 equals 51.3%.

     Petitioners claimed $445 of depreciation on their Schedule E

on account of the Miami property.    This matches the $445 of

depreciation claimed on Brian’s separate tax return.    Brian’s

separate tax return includes a Form 4562, Depreciation and

Amortization, relating to his Schedule E, which shows how the

$445 depreciation deduction was calculated.    Petitioners’ joint

tax return did not include a Form 4562 relating to the joint tax

return Schedule E; but because the joint tax return arrives at

the same $445 deduction, we treat the joint tax return as

implicitly following the same analysis as Brian’s separate tax

return.    The Form 4562 relating to Brian’s separate tax return

Schedule E shows the information set forth in table 1.

                               Table 1

                Item                     Information

   (a)   Classification                  Residential rental property
   (b)   Mo. and yr. placed in service   2003-09-01
   (c)   Basis for depreciation          42,000.00
   (d)   Recovery period                 27.5 yrs.
   (e)   Convention                      MM
   (f)   Method                          S/L
   (g)   Depreciation deduction          445.00
                                 - 9 -

     From the foregoing, we conclude that petitioners allocated

$42,000 of the total $52,000 Miami property purchase price to the

building.     Because of respondent’s explicit concession that

respondent is not challenging petitioners’ allocation, we hold

that 80.8 percent ($42,000 ÷ $52,000) of any additional

capitalized expenditures shall be added to the depreciable basis

of the building and 19.2 percent ($10,000 ÷ $52,000) to the

nondepreciable basis of the land.

     2.   Specific Deductions

     The Schedules E of Brian’s separate tax return and

petitioners’ joint tax return list nine deduction items

aggregating $13,899.     The notice of deficiency allowed $9,018 of

this total, describing it as “the amount verified.”     The parties

have not favored us with a listing of the components of the

$4,881 that was disallowed.

     Respondent did not contend that there should be

disallowances in addition to those set forth in the notices of

deficiency.7    We conclude that the focus of the parties’

stipulations and arguments remains the $4,881 that was

disallowed.




     7
      As explained supra, respondent asserted in the answer an
increased deficiency based on contentions about the effect of
sec. 469 but abandoned this entire assertion on brief. As a
result, we have concluded that the situation has returned to what
it was before the sec. 469 issue was raised.
                              - 10 -

     The parties stipulated that respondent concedes the Schedule

E $708 insurance item that petitioners claimed.   We hold that

this item is allowable in addition to the $9,018 that respondent

allowed in the notice of deficiency.

     The parties stipulated that petitioners concede the $550

cleaning and maintenance item that petitioners claimed.   We hold

that respondent is sustained in the disallowance of this item as

part of the disallowed $4,881.

     The parties stipulated that items aggregating about $5,000

were paid or incurred “in connection with the purchase of the

Miami property”.   As to all but $21.15 of this total, respondent

contends that about half must be capitalized and added to the

basis of the Miami property and the other half capitalized as

loan cost and amortized over the life of the mortgage loan.     On

brief respondent concedes that the $21.15 of interest shown on

the stipulated settlement statement for the Miami property is

currently deductible.   Petitioners have not disputed any of these

characterizations, and so we hold for respondent on this matter,

with the modifications described in the next paragraph.

     Two adjustments shall be made in the computations.   Firstly,

in accordance with our discussion supra section B. Schedule E, 1.

Allocation Between Land and Building, 80.8 percent (not 51.3

percent) of any increase in basis is to be added to that part of

the basis that is subject to depreciation.   Secondly, because
                                - 11 -

respondent has not asserted an increased disallowance (compare

our discussion of section 6214(a), supra) none of the capitalized

amounts are part of the $9,018 of deductions that respondent

allowed in the notice of deficiency.

      As to all Schedule E matters not otherwise disposed of, we

conclude that petitioners have failed to carry their burden of

proving error in respondent’s determinations.    We so hold.

C.   Schedule C--“Tax Doctor”

      Brian operated a tax preparation business under the business

name “Tax Doctor”.   The Tax Doctor business involved Brian’s

preparing tax returns and giving tax advice.    He reported the

results therefrom on a Schedule C, Profit or Loss From Business

(Sole Proprietorship), on his separate tax return.    The

corresponding Schedule C on petitioners’ joint tax return is

identical to the one on Brian’s separate tax return.

      On this Schedule C petitioners reported $8,500 of gross

income, claimed deductions of $23,857 of total expenses, and

calculated a net loss of $15,357, which was then used to offset

some of their other income.

      The notice of deficiency allowed $3,942 of the claimed

$23,857 of deductions, describing the $3,942 as “the amount

verified”.   The parties have not favored us with a listing of the

components of the allowed $3,942 or of the disallowed $19,915.
                                - 12 -

     Consistent with our analysis supra at B. Schedule E, 2.

Specific Deductions, because respondent did not contend that

there should be disallowances in addition to those set forth in

the notices of deficiency, we conclude that the focus of the

parties’ stipulations and arguments remains the $19,915 that was

disallowed in the notice of deficiency to Brian.

     1.     Office Expenses

     Brian started the Tax Doctor business at the beginning of

2003.     Originally, Brian conducted the Tax Doctor business out of

petitioners’ home.8    At some point he decided to move this

business out of petitioners’ home.

     Brian leased9 office space for the Tax Doctor business in

Miami Lakes, Florida (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the

Miami Lakes office), at a monthly rent of $902.81, for a 12-month

term beginning November 1, 2003.    The lease agreement states it

was executed on October 6, 2003.    Brian’s signature on the lease


     8
      Brian did not on his separate tax return (and petitioners
do not on their joint tax return) claim any deductions for
business use of the home in connection with Brian’s Tax Doctor
business. They did claim such deductions in connection with
Brian’s Computer Doctor business (discussed infra), but the
parties have stipulated that petitioners are not entitled to such
deductions in connection with that business.
     9
      The parties stipulated a lease agreement showing “Tax
Doctor, Inc. A Florida Corporation” as lessee. The parties do
not clarify the apparent conflict between (1) the lease
agreement’s referral to Tax Doctor as a corporation and (2)
petitioners’ claim of the deduction on a Schedule C as a sole
proprietorship, a claim agreed to by respondent; we leave the
parties where we find them on this matter.
                                - 13 -

agreement is dated October 9, 2003.      Brian’s $2,529 check to the

lessor, noting that it was for “Office Space”, is dated October

6, 2003; the check was deposited by the lessor on October 6,

2003.

     Respondent concedes $2,708 of the $4,460 petitioners claimed

as office expenses in connection with the Tax Doctor business.

We assume this represents 3 months’ rent (3 x $902.81 =

$2,708.43) for the Miami Lakes office.

     Petitioners do not concede the remaining $1,752 of the

claimed office expenses.     Brian has not described or offered any

evidence purporting to relate to this item.     We hold that (1) the

conceded $2,708 is allowable in addition to the $3,942 respondent

allowed in the notice of deficiency and (2) respondent’s

disallowance of the remaining $1,752 is sustained as part of the

$19,915 disallowed in the notice of deficiency.

     2.     Depreciation

        On the Schedule C for the Tax Doctor business petitioners

claim a deduction of $15,085 for depreciation and section 179

expense.     Apparently, $14,289 relates to a Hummer vehicle shown

on the Form 4562 as having been placed in service on October 20,

2003, and driven 1,023 miles on business, 240 miles commuting,
                              - 14 -

and 234 miles for other personal purposes.10    Respondent

disallowed the entire $15,085.

     Brian testified that (1) he bought the Hummer in order to

(a) move all the Tax Doctor business equipment and furniture out

of his home, (b) entertain clients, and (c) gain new revenue; and

(2) he used the Hummer for commuting.

     Section 162(a) allows a deduction for “all the ordinary and

necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in

carrying on any trade or business”.    E.g., Lucas v. Commissioner,

79 T.C. 1, 6 (1982).   Under section 6001 and section 1.6001-1(a)

and (e), Income Tax Regs., a taxpayer must keep such permanent

books of account or records as are sufficient to establish the

amount of gross income, deductions, credits, or other matters

required to be shown on the tax return.    If the books and records

are not adequate to establish the amount of deductions or

credits, but we are persuaded that the taxpayer is entitled to

deduct more than the Commissioner allowed, then we are required

to make some estimate of how much more should be allowed,

“bearing heavily if * * * [we choose] upon the taxpayer whose

inexactitude is of his own making.”     Cohan v. Commissioner, 39




     10
      The Hummer deductions are shown as $8,318 of special
depreciation, $971 of regular depreciation, and $5,000 of sec.
179 expense. Two other items are shown as $735 and $61 on the
Form 4562, making up the total claimed $15,085.
                                  - 15 -

F.2d 540, 543-544 (2d Cir. 1930).       But sections 274(d)11 and

280F(d)(4)12 provide that no deduction shall be allowed with


     11
          Sec. 274(d) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

     SEC. 274.     DISALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN ENTERTAINMENT, ETC.,
                   EXPENSES.

                    *    *    *     *      *   *    *

          (d) Substantiation Required.--No deduction or
     credit shall be allowed--

                    *    *    *     *      *   *    *

                  (4) with respect to any listed property
             (as defined in section 280F(d)(4)),

     unless the taxpayer substantiates by adequate records
     or by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s
     own statement (A) the amount of such expense or other
     item, (B) the time and place of the travel,
     entertainment, amusement, recreation, or use of the
     facility or property, or the date and description of
     the gift, (C) the business purpose of the expense or
     other item, and (D) the business relationship to the
     taxpayer of persons entertained, using the facility or
     property, or receiving the gift. * * *
     12
          Sec. 280F(d)(4) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

     SEC. 280F.     LIMITATION ON DEPRECIATION FOR LUXURY
                    AUTOMOBILES; LIMITATION WHERE CERTAIN PROPERTY
                    USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES.

                    *    *    *     *      *   *    *

          (d) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes
     of this section--

                    *    *    *     *      *   *    *

                  (4) Listed property.--

                        (A) In general.--Except as provided in
                                                       (continued...)
                                 - 16 -

respect to passenger automobiles or any other property used as a

means of transportation unless the taxpayer substantiates certain

matters by adequate records or by sufficient records

corroborating the taxpayer’s own statement.     There is no leeway

for Cohan type approximations under section 274(d).     See Sanford

v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 823, 827-828 (1968), affd. 412 F.2d 201

(2d Cir. 1969).     Moreover, section 1.274-5T(b)(6)(i)(B),

Temporary Income Tax Regs.,13 50 Fed. Reg. 46016 (Nov. 6, 1985),

prohibits a deduction or credit with respect to such property

unless the taxpayer provides both the amount of each business use

“and the total use of the listed property for the taxable

period.”

     At trial Brian offered (and the Court received) into

evidence a document he described as “My mileage log for the

Hummer 2, H2 use[d] for business purposes” (hereinafter sometimes


     12
          (...continued)
                   subparagraph (B), the term “listed property”
                   means--

                            (i) any passenger automobile,

                            (ii) any other property used as a means
                       of transportation * * *
     13
      Sec. 7805(e)(2), providing that any temporary regulation
expires within 3 years after the date the regulation was issued,
applies to regulations issued after Nov. 20, 1988. Technical and
Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-647, sec. 6232(b),
102 Stat. 3342, 3735. The temporary regulation we apply in the
instant opinion was issued well before that effective date, and
so this regulation’s validity is unaffected by sec. 7805(e)(2).
See, e.g., Boyd v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 305, 320 (2004).
                              - 17 -

referred to as the Hummer log).   The Hummer log has 33 dated

entries, the earliest being Monday, October 6, 2003, showing 42

miles for “Office rental evaluation”, and the latest being

Sunday, December 28, 2003, showing 36 miles for “Office equipment

move”.   The mileage amounts shown on those 33 entries total

1,256.   Brian testified that the Hummer log “came from the

electronic mileage log inside the Hummer itself.   There’s a

button where you put business miles.   It records it.   Turn it

off, it turns it off.   Hit it, it records it.   It still does it

to this day.”   Brian testified that the electronic equipment in

the Hummer is not connected to a printer and it does not show

separate trips; it does show total miles driven between

successive pushes of a button on the equipment.    Brian testified

that he input the mileage to his laptop computer and added the

statement of business purpose that appears next to each entry on

the Hummer log.   Brian testified he input this material at the

end of each week.   The Hummer log is the printout from his laptop

computer and not from the electronic equipment in the Hummer.

Brian testified that the number of Hummer business miles shown on

petitioners’ joint tax return (1,023) is less than the number of

Hummer business miles shown on the Hummer log (1,256) because he

used estimates on the joint tax return.   Brian testified that he
                               - 18 -

drove the Hummer for commuting “Every now and then” but did not

show those miles on the Hummer log because “Why would I record

miles I can’t get credit for?”

     The cumulative effect of the following considerations leads

us to conclude that the Hummer log does not satisfy the

substantiation requirements of section 274(d).

     Brian testified that the Hummer log was updated at the end

of each week.    Yet he explained that the tax return mileage

numbers were lower than the Hummer log totals because he had to

make estimates when he filed the tax returns.    Petitioners’ 2003

joint tax return was filed in 2005 or early 2006.    We believe

that, if the Hummer log indeed was updated weekly through the

last few months of 2003, then it--and not estimates--would have

been used for the tax return, especially the joint tax return.

The fact that the joint tax return still was based on estimates,

as Brian testified, suggests to us that the Hummer log did not

yet exist, which in turn suggests to us that it was not currently

maintained.    We cannot tell from the Hummer log itself when it

was printed.    We cannot tell when the information was input to

the laptop computer.

     Petitioners’ joint tax return states that the Hummer was

placed in service on October 20, 2003.    The Hummer log shows that

12 of the 33 days of use (472 of the total 1,256 miles) were

before October 20.    Petitioners have not explained how this
                              - 19 -

substantial conflict could have occurred if the Hummer log had

been maintained currently, as Brian testified.

     Entries in the Hummer log are also inconsistent with the

lease for rent of the Miami Lakes office.    This lease was dated

October 6, 2003, and signed by Brian on October 9, 2003, for

office rental beginning on November 1, 2003.    A check to the

lessor for “Office Space” was dated October 6, 2003, and

deposited by the lessor that same day.   Yet the Hummer log

includes eight separate entries for “Office rental evaluation”

between October 6 and November 16, 2003.    When asked what the

entries for “Office rental evaluation” meant, Brian said:     “I did

not have an office at the time.   I had to find one.”   At trial

Brian conceded that the entry for “Office rental evaluation” on

November 16, 2003, was erroneous, and he admitted that “there may

be a discrepancy or two” in the Hummer log.

     The Hummer log does not show the total use of the Hummer

during 2003, in violation of the requirement of section 1.274-

5T(b)(6)(i)(B), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 50 Fed. Reg. 46016

(Nov. 6, 1985).   Brian points out that the Form 4562 shows 240

miles commuting and 234 miles for other personal purposes.    But

the Form 4562 is not corroborated, either.

     The many errors and inconsistencies in the Hummer log make

it unreliable, and it does not satisfy the strict substantiation

requirements of section 274(d).   Brian’s vague testimony, by
                              - 20 -

itself, is insufficient to substantiate the claimed mileage.

Indeed, his testimony serves to further support our conclusion

that section 274(d) requires us to sustain respondent’s

disallowance of $14,289 of claimed expenses pertaining to the

Hummer.

     As for the remaining $796 of depreciation expense claimed in

connection with the Tax Doctor business, petitioners neither

described what was depreciated nor offered any evidence; we thus

sustain respondent’s disallowance of that amount.

     3.   Other Expenses

     On brief respondent stated an allowance of $108 of

petitioners’ claimed $827 car and truck expenses for Brian’s Tax

Doctor business.   Respondent did not indicate whether this was

part of “the amount verified” stated in the notice of deficiency.

     Neither side presented any evidence as to the remaining

expenses claimed for Brian’s Tax Doctor business.   We hold that

(1) the conceded $108 is allowable in addition to the $3,942

respondent allowed in the notice of deficiency plus the $2,708

allowed in 1. Office Expenses, supra, and (2) respondent’s

disallowance of the remaining claimed Tax Doctor expenses is

sustained as part of the $19,915 disallowed in the notice of

deficiency.
                                     - 21 -

D.    Schedule C--“Computer Doctor”

       Brian operated a computer business under the business name

“Computer Doctor”.       The Computer Doctor business involved Brian’s

installing hardware and software, and performing network

services; he also consulted about best practices when dealing

with computers.       He reported the results therefrom on a Schedule

C on his separate tax return.         The corresponding Schedule C on

petitioners’ joint tax return differs from the one on Brian’s

separate tax return.

       Table 2 compares the amounts Brian reported on his separate

tax return with the amounts petitioners reported on their joint

tax return regarding Brian’s Computer Doctor business.

                                     Table 2

                                          Brian’s      Petitioners’
           Schedule C                    Separate       Joint Tax
           Line Item                    Tax Return      Tax Return

       7   Gross income                  $3,970            $3,970
       8   Advertising                     $150              $150
       9   Car and truck expenses         1,364             2,764
      13   Depreciation, etc.             2,639             2,639
     20a   Rent for vehicles, etc.        1,020             1,200
      21   Repairs and maintenance          213               250
      22   Supplies                         540               540
      23   Taxes and licenses               375               --
     24a   Travel                           250               --
     24d   Meals and entertainment          945               945
      25   Utilities                      1,950             1,950
      27   Other expenses                    46                46
      28   Total                          9,492            10,484
      29   Tentative profit (loss)       (5,522)           (6,514)
      30   Business use of home           4,200             6,658
      31   Net profit (loss)             (9,722)          (13,172)
                                 - 22 -

     The parties do not have any dispute as to the income from

Brian’s Computer Doctor business.     See supra table 2, item 7.

Petitioners have conceded that they are not entitled to any

deduction for business use of the home in connection with Brian’s

Computer Doctor business.      See supra table 2, item 30.

Respondent allowed all but $2,970 of the other amounts claimed on

Brian’s separate tax return; i.e., all but $1,020 rent for

vehicles, etc., and $1,950 utilities.     See supra table 2, items

20a and 25.

     1.    Vehicles Rent, Utilities

     Petitioners did not provide any evidence or any useful

discussion on brief14 regarding the disallowed $1,020 and $1,950

items.    We sustain respondent’s disallowances of these items.

     2.    Increased Amounts

     As to three of the items on their joint tax return Computer

Doctor Schedule C, petitioners deducted greater amounts than

Brian had deducted on his separate tax return.     See supra table

2, items 9, 20a, and 21.    The parties noted these differences by

stipulation at the start of the trial.     Respondent did not



     14
      On brief petitioners made the following argument:
“Schedule C Deductions are accurate and should be allowed. This
is proven by all of the additional receipts and documents the
forced the respondent to accept existence. As seen by admitted
items the day of court.” [Reproduced literally.] Apart from
that generic statement, petitioners’ brief did not provide any
discussion of any of the expenses for the Computer Doctor
business.
                               - 23 -

indicate at trial that these three increases should be

disallowed.   We note that respondent had allowed in full the

amounts claimed on Brian’s separate tax return for table 2, items

9 and 21.

     On brief respondent contends for the first time that (1) all

three increased amounts are “at issue”, (2) petitioners failed to

carry their burden of proof on the increased amounts, and (3)

certain evidence does not support the allowability of the

increased amounts.   Petitioners’ brief is unhelpful.   See supra

note 14.

     At the start of the trial we pointed out that petitioners

had the burden of proof generally as to matters in the notices of

deficiency, but the joint tax return was the starting point for

calculating any deficiency.

     It is plain that the three increased amounts claimed on the

joint tax return were not disallowed in either of the notices of

deficiency and were not conceded by petitioners.   Under the

circumstances, respondent has the burden of proof as to the three

increased amounts.   Respondent failed to carry this burden of

proof.

     Also, by the time the instant case was submitted, respondent

had not contended that the three increased amounts were in

dispute.    We will not consider an issue raised for the first time
                                - 24 -

on brief when it is too late to introduce evidence that might

alter the effect of other evidence already in the record.

     Accordingly, we hold for petitioners that the three

increased amounts are deductible.

     3.   Reduced Amounts

     As shown supra on table 2, Brian claimed deductions of $375

for taxes and licenses (item 23) and $250 for travel (item 24a).

Respondent allowed those deductions in the notice of deficiency.

As shown supra on table 2, petitioners did not claim either of

those two deductions on their joint tax return.

     It is well established that amended tax returns may

constitute admissions that errors were made on the earlier filed

tax returns.   See, e.g., Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386,

399 (1984); Neaderland v. Commissioner, 52 T.C. 532, 540 (1969),

affd. 424 F.2d 639 (2d Cir. 1970).       We treat petitioners’ joint

tax return as embodying their concessions that they were not

entitled to deductions for those two items.

     As we have noted supra, we made it plain at the start of the

trial that the joint tax return was to be the starting point.

Petitioners did not claim deductions for those items on their

joint tax return and did not contend at trial that those

deductions should be allowed.

     We hold that deductions for items 23 and 24a, as shown supra

on table 2, are not allowed.
                                - 25 -

E.   IRA Contributions

      On her separate tax return Lisa claimed a $1,000 deduction

for an individual retirement account (IRA) contribution.

Respondent disallowed this deduction.    On his separate tax return

Brian claimed a $1,500 deduction for an IRA contribution.

Respondent disallowed this deduction.    On their joint tax return

petitioners claimed a $4,000 deduction for an IRA contribution.

The parties stipulated that each petitioner made a $1,500 IRA

contribution in 2003.    That year Brian participated in a

qualified retirement plan through his employer.    At trial Brian

conceded that the only IRA deduction petitioners claim is $1,500

for Lisa’s IRA contribution.

      As best we can tell, the only dispute between the parties

that bears on the allowability of a deduction for any part of

Lisa’s stipulated $1,500 IRA contribution is whether Lisa was an

“active participant”.    See sec. 219(g)(5).   If she was, then the

applicable dollar amount for limitation purposes is $60,000 and

it is likely that no deduction is allowable.    See sec.

219(g)(3)(B)(i).   If Lisa was not an active participant, then the

applicable dollar amount is $150,000 (because Brian was an active

participant) and it is likely that some deduction is allowable.

See sec. 219(g)(7).

      Both sides seemed to carefully avoid presenting any evidence

as to Lisa’s status.     Brian offered an examiner’s report which,
                              - 26 -

he said, proposed to allow the deduction.    We explained that the

report does not really bear on Lisa’s actual status, that it

would be relevant to any negligence determination,15 but that

respondent had not determined, or asserted, negligence as to any

item on Lisa’s separate return.   As a result, the examiner’s

report, as Brian described it, would not be relevant to any

matter in dispute.   Brian did not offer any other evidence

regarding Lisa’s status.   Respondent’s counsel inquired as to

Brian’s status as an active participant--a matter that the

parties had stipulated and Brian conceded--but did not inquire

about or offer any evidence about Lisa’s status.

     In accordance with our ruling at the outset that petitioners

have the burden of proof as to adjustments in the notices of

deficiency but that the starting point for our redeterminations

is petitioners’ joint tax return, we hold (1) allowability of a

deduction for $1,000 of Lisa’s IRA contribution is to be tested

using the $60,000 amount of section 219(g), and (2) allowability

of a deduction for the remaining $500 of Lisa’s IRA contribution

is to be tested using the $150,000 amount of section 219(g).     No

deduction is allowable for any part of the remainder of the

$4,000 claimed IRA contribution deduction.


     15
      At the trial we described the situation in Bermingham v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-69, Issue II. A.(3), to illustrate
the difference between allowability of the deduction on the one
hand, and negligence on the other hand.
                                   - 27 -

F.   Section 6662 Penalty

      Respondent determined an accuracy-related penalty under

section 6662(a) and (b)(1) for negligence or disregard of rules

or regulations with respect to Brian’s separate return, but not

with respect to Lisa’s.       Under section 6662(a) and (b)(1),16 a

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

of an underpayment of tax due to, among other things, negligence

or disregard of rules or regulations.       The term “negligence”

includes any failure to make a reasonable attempt to comply with


      16
           Sec. 6662 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

      SEC. 6662.      IMPOSITION OF ACCURACY-RELATED PENALTY.

           (a) Imposition of Penalty.--If this section applies to
      any portion of an underpayment of tax required to be shown
      on a return, there shall be added to the tax an amount equal
      to 20 percent of the portion of the underpayment to which
      this section applies.

           (b) Portion of Underpayment to Which Section Applies.--
      This section shall apply to the portion of any underpayment
      which is attributable to 1 or more of the following:

                   (1) Negligence or disregard of rules or
              regulations.

                  *      *     *     *      *    *     *

           (c) Negligence.--For purposes of this section, the term
      “negligence” includes any failure to make a reasonable
      attempt to comply with the provisions of this title, and the
      term “disregard” includes any careless, reckless, or
      intentional disregard.

This does not include the amendment to the heading of the section
made by sec. 812(e)(1) of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004,
Pub. L. 108-357, 118 Stat. 1580.
                              - 28 -

the provisions of the internal revenue laws or to exercise

ordinary and reasonable care in the preparation of a tax return.

Sec. 6662(c); sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.    “Negligence”

also includes any failure by the taxpayer to keep adequate books

and records or to substantiate items properly.    Stovall v.

Commissioner, 762 F.2d 891, 895 (11th Cir. 1985), affg. T.C.

Memo. 1983-450; Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 449 (2001);

sec. 1.6662-3(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.

     The term “disregard” includes any careless, reckless, or

intentional disregard.   Sec. 6662(c).   Disregard of rules or

regulations is “careless” if the taxpayer does not exercise

reasonable diligence to determine the correctness of a return

position that is contrary to the rule or regulation.    Sec.

1.6662-3(b)(2), Income Tax Regs.   Disregard of rules or

regulations is “reckless” if the taxpayer makes little or no

effort to determine whether a rule or regulation exists, under

circumstances that demonstrate a substantial deviation from the

standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe.      Id.

     Section 6664(c)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that the

section 6662(a) penalty shall not be imposed with respect to any

portion of an underpayment if a taxpayer shows that there was

reasonable cause for such portion and that the taxpayer acted in

good faith with respect to such portion.   Reasonable cause and

good faith may be indicated by an honest misunderstanding of fact
                                - 29 -

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

and education of the taxpayer.     Sec. 1.6664-4(b), Income Tax

Regs.

     Under section 7491(c) the Commissioner has the burden of

production with respect to liability for the negligence or

disregard penalty.     That is, the Commissioner must see to it that

the record includes sufficient evidence indicating that it is

appropriate to impose this penalty.      Higbee v. Commissioner, 116

T.C. at 446-447.     If the Commissioner satisfies this burden of

production, then the taxpayer has the burden of proving that (1)

the underpayment was not attributable to negligence or disregard

of rules or regulations, or (2) the reasonable cause exception

applies.     Id.

        Perhaps the most telling evidence on this penalty issue is

the Hummer log, discussed extensively supra under C. Schedule C--

“Tax Doctor”, 2. Depreciation.     Petitioners reported that Brian

received $8,500 in 2003 from Brian’s “Tax Doctor” business of

preparing tax returns and giving tax advice.     The Hummer

accounted for about $15,000 of deductions from that business.

The necessity of keeping appropriate records--and the

understanding of the sort of records that would be appropriate--

to support so substantial a claim should have been reasonably

clear to someone like Brian.     After all, he held himself out as

knowledgeable about tax matters, people paid him to do tax work
                              - 30 -

for them or give tax advice to them, and he testified at trial as

to why it was appropriate for him to insist on being called

“Doctor”.   Brian testified he has a Ph.D. in education

administration, a master’s degree in management information

systems, and a bachelor’s degree in business administration.    Yet

on this major matter of dispute the major books and records item

he offered--the Hummer log--was so much in conflict with what

petitioners showed on their tax return that we doubted not only

its reliability but even its existence at the time when, Brian

testified, it was updated weekly.

     As to substantially all of the other matters in dispute when

the instant case was tried, Brian did not present appropriate

books and records--in many instances, he did not present any

books and records.   As to the matters the parties settled with

concessions or partial concessions, Brian did not present any

books and records to show that he was not negligent even though

he conceded the adjustment in whole or part.

     The foregoing leads us to conclude that petitioners failed

to maintain books and records in accordance with the requirements

of section 6001 and the regulations authorized (and not

challenged by petitioners) thereunder.

     As we recently noted in Montgomery v. Commissioner, 127 T.C.

43, 66-67 (2006):

     The determination of whether a taxpayer acted with
     reasonable cause and in good faith depends on the
                              - 31 -

     pertinent facts and circumstances, including the
     taxpayer’s efforts to assess his or her proper tax
     liability, the knowledge and experience of the
     taxpayer, and the reliance on the advice of a
     professional. Sec. 1.6664-4(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.
     * * *

Unlike the situation in Montgomery, in the instant case the

record does not include evidence as to the steps Brian took to

determine the correctness of any of the items as to which there

is a determination of negligence or disregard of rules or

regulations.   Thus, petitioners failed to carry their burden of

proof as to the reasonable cause exception.

     We hold (1) respondent has carried the burden of production,

(2) Brian has been negligent, and (3) petitioners have failed to

carry their burden of proof as to reasonable cause.

     We remind the parties that the negligence or disregard

penalty applies only to those items as to which that penalty had

been determined in the notice of deficiency to Brian.   Also,

although no negligence or disregard penalty had been determined

against Lisa in the notice of deficiency to her, because of the

joint tax return she becomes jointly and severally liable for any

negligence or disregard penalty that we sustain.

     To take account of the foregoing,


                                              Decision will be

                                         entered under Rule 155.
