                       T.C. Memo. 1999-351



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                 ROCKWELL BANKER, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 22332-97.             Filed October 25, 1999.



     Rockwell Banker, pro se.

     Karen N. Sommers, for respondent.


             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     GOLDBERG, Special Trial Judge:   Respondent determined a

deficiency in petitioner's Federal income tax in the amount of

$5,500 and an accuracy-related penalty pursuant to section

6662(a) in the amount of $1,100 for the taxable year 1994.

Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the

Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all
                                - 2 -

Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and

Procedure.

     The issues for decision are:   (1) Whether petitioner is

entitled to miscellaneous itemized deductions in excess of

amounts conceded by respondent, and (2) whether petitioner is

liable for an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).

                          FINDINGS OF FACT

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

The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are

incorporated herein by this reference.   Petitioner resided in

Spring Valley, California, when the petition in this case was

filed.

     Petitioner and Judy Barber (Ms. Barber) were married in

October 1994.   Consequently, petitioner resided with Ms. Barber

until April 11, 1995.    On April 11, 1995, petitioner moved out of

the marital home because of marital difficulties.   Petitioner's

marriage to Ms. Barber was annulled on September 21, 1995.

     Petitioner and Ms. Barber filed a joint Federal income tax

return for the year 1994.   On their 1994 Federal income tax

return, petitioner and Ms. Barber claimed miscellaneous itemized

deductions of $37,066.   In the case of an individual, the

miscellaneous itemized deductions for any taxable year shall be

allowed only to the extent that the aggregate of such deductions

exceeds 2 percent of the adjusted gross income.   See sec. 67(a).
                               - 3 -

After applying the 2-percent limitation, petitioner and Ms.

Barber claimed miscellaneous itemized deductions of $35,790.

     On their joint 1994 Federal income tax return, petitioner

and Ms. Barber reported gross income in the amount of $63,787.

Petitioner's share of the gross income was $1,728.   The balance

of the gross income reported on the joint return was attributable

to Ms. Barber.   Petitioner and Ms. Barber both signed the joint

return.

     Respondent determined that petitioner is not entitled to the

miscellaneous deductions he claimed on his 1994 Federal income

tax return.   In a related case, Barber v. Commissioner, docket

No. 10083-98S, involving the 1994 taxable year, respondent agreed

to a reduced deficiency.   The reduced deficiency in that case

resulted from respondent's concession that Ms. Barber had

substantiated claimed job expenses and miscellaneous deductions

of $17,091.   Accordingly, respondent in this case has conceded

that petitioner is entitled to miscellaneous itemized deductions

of $17,091.

     Petitioner has failed to introduce evidence that

demonstrates that he is entitled to claim miscellaneous itemized

deductions in excess of the amount conceded by respondent.

Deductions are a matter of legislative grace.   See INDOPCO, Inc.

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

Helvering, 292 U.S. 435 (1934).   A taxpayer bears the burden of
                                 - 4 -

substantiating the amount and purpose of the deductions claimed.

See Hradesky v. Commissioner, 65 T.C. 87, 90 (1975), affd. per

curiam 540 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1976); sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax

Regs.     Moreover, taxpayers are required to maintain records that

are sufficient to enable the Commissioner to determine their

correct tax liability.    See sec. 6001; Meneguzzo v. Commissioner,

43 T.C. 824, 831-832 (1965); sec. 1.6001-1(a), Income Tax Regs.

Therefore, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to claim

miscellaneous itemized deductions in excess of the amount

conceded by respondent.

     Section 6662(a) imposes a penalty of 20 percent of the

portion of the underpayment which is attributable to negligence

or disregard of rules or regulations.     See sec. 6662(b)(1).

Negligence is the lack of due care or failure to do what a

reasonable and ordinarily prudent person would do under the

circumstances.    See Neely v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 934, 947

(1985).    The term "disregard" includes any careless, reckless, or

intentional disregard.    Sec. 6662(c).   No penalty shall be

imposed if it is shown that there was reasonable cause for the

underpayment and the taxpayer acted in good faith with respect to

the underpayment.    See sec. 6664(c).

     On the basis of the record, we find that petitioner has

failed to demonstrate that he was not negligent and also has

failed to show that he did not disregard rules and regulations.
                               - 5 -

Petitioner has failed to furnish evidence that would substantiate

his claimed miscellaneous itemized deductions.     Petitioner's

argument that he relied entirely on Ms. Barber with respect to

the amount of the deductions is unavailing.     Such reliance does

not establish a lack of negligence.     Petitioner signed the joint

1994 Federal income tax return and had a responsibility to check

the accuracy of the return.   See Calhoun v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1992-189.   We hold that petitioner is liable for the

accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).


                                            Decision will be entered

                                       under Rule 155.
