Jeffery Allen Robinson - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         

          sufficient to establish the amount of his or her income and                 
          deductions.  Sec. 6001.                                                     
          The first issue is whether petitioner failed to report wage                 
          income of $1,179 from his employment with K-Mart Corp. during               
          1992.  The parties stipulated, and petitioner acknowledged at               
          trial, that he received wages during 1992 from K-Mart Corp. in              
          the amount of $1,179, which he failed to report on his income tax           
          return.  Petitioner testified that he failed to report such wages           
          because he used these wages to replace an automobile that was               
          stolen from him during December 1992.                                       
          Section 61(a)(1) provides that "compensation for services"                  
          must be included in income.  Petitioner presented no authority to           
          support his position that the unreported wage income constituted            
          an offset to any theft loss he sustained.  The Court rejects                
          petitioner's position that such income was offset by a theft                
          loss.3  Consequently, the Court holds that the $1,179 wage income           


          3     Petitioner did not itemize deductions on his 1992 income              
          tax return that he filed as head of household claiming the                  
          standard deduction of $5,250.  The Court advised petitioner at              
          trial that a theft loss is allowable under sec. 165(c)(3) only as           
          an itemized deduction.  However, based on petitioner's testimony,           
          it is unlikely that petitioner could have obtained any tax                  
          benefit from a theft loss because his basis in the automobile was           
          $1,500, and it is likely that the fair market value at the time             
          of the theft would have been less than $1,500.  Under sec.                  
          165(h)(1) and (2), any loss by an individual from a casualty or             
          theft shall be allowed only to the extent the amount of the loss            
          from each casualty or theft exceeds $100 and only to the extent             
          that the amount of the net casualty or theft losses for the year            
          exceeds 10 percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income.                 




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011