- 5 -
received by petitioner constituted gross income for Federal
income tax purposes. Respondent, therefore, is sustained on this
issue.
The second issue is whether petitioner failed to report
interest income of $28 from State Savings Bank in 1992. The
parties stipulated, and petitioner acknowledged at trial, that he
received interest during 1992 from State Savings Bank in the
amount of $28, which he failed to report on his income tax
return. Petitioner testified that he failed to report the
interest because he used the interest to pay the fee for an
income tax course that he attended in 1992 sponsored by H & R
Block.
Section 61(a)(4) provides that gross income includes
"interest". Petitioner presented no authority to support his
position that he could offset his interest income by the cost of
a tax course. The Court rejects petitioner's contention.4
Consequently, the Court holds that the $28 interest income
constituted gross income under section 61(a)(4). Respondent,
therefore, is sustained on this issue.
4
Sec. 212(3) allows as an itemized deduction for an
individual's taxable year any "ordinary and necessary" expenses
paid "in connection with the determination, collection, or refund
of any tax". The Court advised petitioner at trial that,
although the fee for his income tax course may have been
allowable as a deduction under sec. 212(3), it must have been
taken as an itemized deduction from his adjusted gross income.
See Wassenaar v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1195, 1201-1202 (1979).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011