                  T.C. Summary Opinion 2008-131



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



           DENIS M. AND YOLANDA DOYLE, Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket Nos. 17886-06S, 22135-07S.   Filed October 14, 2008.


     Denis M. and Yolanda Doyle, pro se se.

     Marie E. Small, for respondent.



     ARMEN, Special Trial Judge:   These cases were heard pursuant

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

effect when the petitions were filed.1   Pursuant to section

7463(b), the decisions to be entered are not reviewable by any




     1
        Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent section
references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the
taxable years at issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                               - 2 -

other court, and this opinion shall not be treated as precedent

for any other case.

     Respondent determined deficiencies of $3,878 and $2,992 in

petitioners’ 2004 and 2005 Federal income taxes, respectively.

In his Answer to the amended petition for taxable year 2005,

respondent asserted a penalty under section 6662(a) of $598.

     After concessions by the parties,2 the only issue remaining

for decision is whether petitioners are liable for tax on

interest income earned in petitioner Yolanda Doyle’s name.

Because petitioners did not meet their burden of proof as to

either taxable year, we hold for respondent.

                            Background

     Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so

found.   We incorporate by reference the parties’ stipulation of

facts for 2004 and accompanying exhibits.   We also incorporate by

reference those facts deemed admitted under Rule 90(c) due to

petitioners’ failure to respond to respondent’s Requests for

Admission filed March 18, 2008.



     2
        Petitioners did not dispute their failure to report $616
of interest income in 2004 and thus it is deemed conceded. See
Rule 34(b)(4). At trial, respondent appeared to have conceded
that petitioners properly reported the taxable portion of pension
income received in 2005. Further, because petitioners did
disclose the Social Security income received for each year in
issue on their Federal income tax returns, the only issue that
remains with respect to the Social Security income is the proper
calculation of the taxable portions for each year in issue using
the formula provided by sec. 86.
                                - 3 -

     At the time the petitions in these two related cases were

filed, petitioners Denis M. Doyle and Yolanda Doyle were

residents of New York.3

     On June 12, 2006, respondent mailed petitioners a notice of

deficiency for taxable year 2004 determining that petitioners

failed to report $21,751 of interest income and $19,621 of Social

Security income.

     On July 23, 2007, respondent mailed to petitioners a notice

of deficiency for taxable year 2005 determining that petitioners

failed to report $14,242 of interest income, $21,902 of Social

Security income, and $1,320 of pension income.      In his Answer to

the amended petition filed in docket No. 22135-07S, respondent

asserted an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) of

$598.    At trial, the Court found that respondent had not

satisfied his burden of proof with respect to the imposition of

the accuracy-related penalty.    See Rule 142(a).   Accordingly, the

issue is no longer before us for decision.

     Thus, the only remaining dispute in these cases is whether

petitioners are responsible for tax on interest credited in 2004

and 2005 to accounts held in petitioner’s name.     Petitioner

argues that the interest income is not properly taxable to her


     3
        Petitioner Denis M. Doyle testified   that the bank
accounts in question were under the control   of his wife,
petitioner Yolanda Doyle. She also did the    bulk of testifying at
trial. Therefore, references to petitioner    in the singular refer
to petitioner Yolanda Doyle alone.
                               - 4 -

because the bulk of the money in the bank accounts generating the

interest income (bearing petitioner’s name and Social Security

number) actually belongs to petitioner’s relatives who live in

Ecuador and not to petitioner herself.

                            Discussion

     Gross income is defined in the Internal Revenue Code as

being “all income from whatever source derived” unless otherwise

specifically excluded.   Sec. 61.   Interest income is specifically

included in gross income pursuant to section 61(a)(4).

     It is well-settled that the tax liability for income from

property attaches to the owner of such property.   See, e.g.,

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930).    Here, petitioner argues that

she is not the owner of all of the money in the bank accounts and

accordingly should not be taxed on the portion of interest

payments relating to the funds that do not belong to her.    We are

not persuaded by petitioner, and she provided no corroborating

documents, witnesses, or evidentiary support for her testimony;

petitioners offered nothing by way of substantiation at any point

during the proceedings to support their contention that the bulk

of the money generating the interest and held in the bank

accounts bearing petitioner’s name and social security number

actually belongs to petitioner’s relatives.

     Generally, the Commissioner’s determinations are presumed

correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving those
                               - 5 -

determinations wrong.   Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v Commissioner,

503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115

(1933).   Under section 7491, the burden of proof may shift from

the taxpayer to the Commissioner if the taxpayer produces

credible evidence with respect to any factual issue relevant to

ascertaining the taxpayer’s tax liability.   Sec. 7491(a)(1).    In

these cases there is no such shift because petitioners neither

alleged that section 7491 was applicable nor established that

they fully complied with the requirements of section 7491(a)(2).

The burden of proof in both cases remained on petitioners, and

they did not meet it.   See Wood Corp. v. Commissioner, 22 B.T.A.

1182, 1186 (1931) (requiring some evidentiary showing because

“[t]he adequate presentation of the pertinent facts is the burden

assumed by the petitioner * * * [and a] decision favorable to its

contentions can not rest on assumption or speculation”), affd. 63

F.2d 1023 (6th Cir. 1933); see also Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87

T.C. 74, 77 (1986); Quita v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-309

(holding that taxpayers’ unsubstantiated claims of nominee status

did not serve to shield taxpayers from liability for tax due on

interest received).   Petitioners provided us with no evidence,

save the testimony of petitioner herself, to counter respondent’s

determinations.   She did not provide us with the names of the

relatives living in Ecuador to whom the money allegedly belongs,

the approximate dates on which the money might have been sent to
                               - 6 -

her for safekeeping, or even with information as to what she was

supposed to do with the money as time went on.     Accordingly, we

are unable to find for petitioners.

     We therefore sustain respondent’s determinations with

respect to the interest income received in petitioners’ 2004 and

2005 taxable years.   To reflect our disposition of the disputed

issue,


                                            Decision will be entered

                                       under Rule 155.
