                    T.C. Summary Opinion 2010-76



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



              EDMUND DOUGLAS ROBERTS, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 2716-09S.               Filed June 17, 2010.



     Edmund Douglas Roberts, pro se.

     Kimberly A. Kazda, for respondent.



     RUWE, Judge:     This case was heard pursuant to the provisions

of section 74631 of the Internal Revenue Code in effect when the

petition was filed.    Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision to

be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion

shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.


     1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
                                - 2 -

     Respondent determined a $10,482.75 deficiency in

petitioner’s 2005 Federal income tax and a $1,670.30 addition to

tax under section 6651(a)(1).   After concessions by respondent,2

the issues for decision are:    (1) Whether petitioner is entitled

to a charitable contribution deduction of $28,855;3 and (2)

whether petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under

section 6651(a)(1) for failure to timely file his 2005 Federal

income tax return.

                           Background

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

The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by reference.   At the time the petition was

filed, petitioner’s mailing address was in California.

     Petitioner’s 2005 Federal income tax return was filed in

June 2007, more than 13 months after it was due.   For 2005

petitioner claimed, on Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, a $200

cash charitable contribution, which he described as donations to

panhandlers and the Salvation Army, and $28,655 of noncash


     2
      Respondent initially disallowed a $1,843 deduction for
local taxes paid and a $16,092 deduction for real estate taxes.
By stipulation respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled to
these deductions.
     3
      On line 18 of the 2005 Schedule A, Itemized Deductions,
petitioner claimed a charitable contribution deduction of
$30,655. However, this figure appears to be a miscalculation
since its components consist of claimed cash gifts of $200 and
noncash gifts of $28,655. Thus, the correct total gifts to
charity claimed by petitioner is $28,855.
                               - 3 -

charitable contributions.   Included with his 2005 Federal income

tax return was a self-prepared substitute Form 8283, Noncash

Charitable Contributions, in which petitioner claims to have

contributed more than 450 items of property consisting primarily

of used clothing, but also including, among other things, towels,

bedsheets, books, costume jewelry, children’s toys, and glass

lamps.   Petitioner’s descriptions of the items of property

allegedly contributed to charity are vague and include self-

assigned estimates of their values.    Petitioner also provided

copies of five receipts from Goodwill Industries (Goodwill) dated

January 9, April 13, May 18, September 16, and October 1, 2005.

Only one of the receipts bears a signature indicating that the

donated items were received by Goodwill, and the receipts provide

nothing more than vague references to the items allegedly

donated; e.g., “men’s boots”, “ladies’ clothes”, “men’s clothes”,

“boy’s clothes”, “women’s clothing”, and “4 bags of clothes”.

     On October 29, 2008, respondent issued a notice of

deficiency to petitioner determining a deficiency of $10,482.75

and an addition to tax of $1,670.30 under section 6651(a)(1).

The deficiency is based on disallowed itemized deductions.

Respondent’s determination to disallow petitioner’s claimed

charitable contribution deduction was generally based on

respondent’s assertion that petitioner had failed to adequately

substantiate the items claimed as charitable contributions.
                                 - 4 -

                              Discussion

     The Commissioner’s determinations in a notice of deficiency

are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of

proving error in the Commissioner’s determinations.    Rule 142(a);

Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).    The burden of

proof may shift to the Commissioner in certain circumstances if

the taxpayer introduces credible evidence and establishes that he

substantiated items, maintained required records, and fully

cooperated with the Commissioner’s reasonable requests.    Sec.

7491(a)(1) and (2)(A) and (B).    Petitioner has neither asserted

that the burden of proof has shifted to respondent nor provided

adequate substantiation of the alleged charitable contributions

claimed on his 2005 Federal income tax return; therefore, the

burden of proof remains with petitioner.

     Deductions are a matter of legislative grace, and the

taxpayer bears the burden of proving he is entitled to the

deductions claimed.     Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner,

503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992); New Colonial Ice Co. v. Helvering, 292

U.S. 435, 440 (1934).    A taxpayer must substantiate amounts

claimed as deductions by maintaining the records necessary to

establish that he is entitled to the deductions.    Sec. 6001; sec.

1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.

     In general, section 170(a) allows as a deduction any

charitable contribution the payment of which is made within the
                                 - 5 -

taxable year.   Deductions for charitable contributions are

allowable only if verified under regulations prescribed by the

Secretary.    Sec. 170(a)(1); Hewitt v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 258,

261 (1997), affd. without published opinion 166 F.3d 332 (4th

Cir. 1998).

Cash Charitable Contributions

     A cash contribution to charity made on or before August 17,

2006, in an amount less than $250 may be substantiated with a

canceled check, a receipt, or other reliable evidence showing the

name of the donee, the date of the contribution, and the amount

of the contribution.4    Alami El Moujahid v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2009-42; sec. 1.170A-13(a)(1), Income Tax Regs.

     With respect to the claimed $200 of cash contributions to

charity, petitioner has failed to offer anything more than his

self-serving testimony that he made various donations to

panhandlers and the Salvation Army.      The Court need not accept a

taxpayer’s self-serving testimony when the taxpayer fails to

present corroborative evidence.     Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87

T.C. 74, 77 (1986).     Petitioner did not offer any canceled



     4
      There are now stricter requirements for cash contributions
to charity. Sec. 170(f)(17). No deduction for a contribution of
money in any amount is allowed unless the donor maintains a bank
record or written communication from the donee showing the name
of the donee organization, the date of the contribution, and the
amount of the contribution. Id. This new provision is effective
for contributions made after Aug. 17, 2006. Pension Protection
Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-280, sec. 1217, 120 Stat. 1080.
                               - 6 -

checks, receipts, or other reliable evidence to substantiate the

claimed $200 of cash contributions to charity.    Accordingly, we

sustain respondent’s determination to deny to petitioner a

deduction for the claimed $200 of cash contributions to charity.

Noncash Charitable Contributions

     For charitable contributions made in property other than

cash, the value of the contribution is generally the fair market

value at the time of contribution.     Hewitt v. Commissioner, supra

at 261; sec. 1.170A-1(c)(1), Income Tax Regs.    The fair market

value of the property contributed is the price at which the

property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing

seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and

both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.    Sec. 1.170A-

1(c)(2), Income Tax Regs.

     Generally, for noncash charitable contributions of property,

a taxpayer must maintain for each contribution a receipt from the

donee showing the name of the donee, the date and location of the

contribution, and a description of the property in detail

reasonably sufficient under the circumstance.    Sec. 1.170A-

13(b)(1), Income Tax Regs.   The rules are modified, however, for

a contribution of an item of property where the amount claimed or

reported as a deduction under section 170 with respect to such

item exceeds $5,000.   Sec. 1.170A-13(c)(1)(i), Income Tax Regs.

In this respect an item of property is the aggregate amount
                              - 7 -

claimed or reported as a deduction for a charitable contribution

under section 170 for such items of property and all similar

items of property by the same donor for the same taxable year

(whether or not donated to the same donee).   Id.   The phrase

“similar items of property” means property of the same generic

category or type, such as clothing, toys, and jewelry.   Sec.

1.170A-13(c)(7)(iii), Income Tax Regs.   A donor who claims or

reports a charitable contribution deduction for an item of

property that exceeds $5,000 in value generally must obtain a

qualified appraisal for the contributed property, attach a fully

completed appraisal summary to his tax return on which the

deduction for the contribution is first claimed (or reported) by

the donor, and maintain records containing, inter alia, the name

and address of the donee organization, the date and location of

the contribution, a description of the property in detail

reasonable under the circumstances, and the fair market value of

the property at the time the contribution was made, including the

method used in determining the fair market value.   Sec. 1.170A-

13(c)(2), Income Tax Regs.; see also sec. 1.170A-13(b)(2)(ii),

Income Tax Regs.

     The receipts and the self-prepared substitute Form 8283 that

petitioner submitted to substantiate the noncash charitable

contributions do not meet the statutory requirements.

Petitioner’s substitute Form 8283 does not indicate the dates on
                               - 8 -

which the items were allegedly contributed to charity, nor does

it indicate the identity of any donee organization.     Moreover,

petitioner has neither attached to his Federal income tax return

nor proffered an appraisal summary to establish the values of the

items allegedly donated.   In fact, when asked how he determined

the values of the items reported on his substitute Form 8283,

petitioner responded:

     That’s determined by looking at going shopping, looking
     at the ads when I purchase clothes, cutting it as by
     some value depending upon the wear. When my children
     were young I would buy the, you know, I’d buy my
     daughter a brand-new dress and she’d wear it two or
     three times and grow out of it. So it’d still have a
     lot of value in it. So it depends upon the condition
     of the materials, an estimate.

Furthermore, the copies of the five receipts from Goodwill

neither reconcile with petitioner’s substitute Form 8283 nor

provide anything more than vague descriptions of the items

donated.   Accordingly, we find that petitioner has failed to

establish, by proper and adequate substantiation, entitlement to

a charitable contribution deduction for the noncash items he

claims to have donated to charity.     We therefore sustain

respondent’s determination to deny petitioner a deduction for

noncash contributions to charity.

Section 6651(a)(1) Addition to Tax

     Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax for the

failure to file a return on the date prescribed therefor

(determined with regard to any extension of time for filing),
                                 - 9 -

unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable cause

and not due to willful neglect.    Section 7491(c) generally

provides that the Commissioner bears the burden of production

with respect to the liability of an individual for any penalty or

addition to tax.   The Commissioner may meet his burden of

production by coming forward with sufficient evidence indicating

that it is appropriate to impose the relevant penalty.        Higbee v.

Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446 (2001).

     Petitioner filed his 2005 Federal income tax return more

than 13 months after its due date.       Petitioner has neither

offered any explanation for the tardiness of his 2005 Federal

income tax return nor established that he had been granted an

extension of time to file.   Thus, not only has respondent met his

burden of production with respect to the addition to tax under

section 6651(a)(1), but also petitioner has failed to establish

that his late-filed 2005 Federal income tax return was due to

reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.       Accordingly, we

sustain the section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax but note that the

section 6651(a)(1) addition to tax computation must be adjusted

to reflect respondent’s concessions.

     To reflect the foregoing,


                                              Decision will be entered

                                         under Rule 155.
