- 2 -
tax under section 6651(a)(1) in the amount of $228, and an
accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) in the amount of
$1,007.
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner is
entitled to claim $21,130 in itemized deductions on Schedule A;
(2) whether petitioner is entitled to claim a dependency
exemption deduction for his son; (3) whether petitioner is
entitled to claim head-of-household filing status; (4) whether
petitioner is liable for the addition to tax under section
6651(a)(1); and (5) whether petitioner is liable for the
accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a).
No stipulation of facts has been filed in this case.2 At
the time he filed his petition, petitioner resided in Aliso
Viejo, California.
Schedule A
During 1994, petitioner was employed as a general machinist
at Mag Instruments, Inc. (Mag) in Ontario, California.
Petitioner worked for Mag from September 1992 until September
1995 when he was terminated. Before working for Mag, petitioner
lived in Aliso Viejo, California. Petitioner took the job with
2 At the conclusion of trial, the Court set a schedule for
the parties to file seriatim briefs. Petitioner did not file a
brief. We could declare petitioner in default and dismiss his
case. Rule 123; Stringer v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 693 (1985),
affd. without published opinion 789 F.2d 917 (4th Cir. 1986).
However, we decline to do so, and we shall decide the case on the
merits. See Calcutt v. Commissioner, 84 T.C. 716 (1985).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011