- 9 -
employment tax.4 The $13,480 claimed as expenses on petitioner’s
Schedule C included $12,301 for home office expenses.5 In the
notice of deficiency, respondent determined that the claimed home
office expenses were unreimbursed employee business expenses that
were allowable as itemized deductions, subject to the limitations
of section 67, rather than as deductions related to a trade or
business activity. Petitioner contends he was an independent
contractor and was not an employee of Techmatics. Therefore, he
contends, the expenses are deductible as trade or business
expenses on Schedule C of his return.
At the outset, the Court notes that only the 1998 year is
properly before the Court. A valid notice of deficiency and a
timely filed petition are prerequisites to this Court’s
jurisdiction to redetermine a deficiency. Secs. 6212 and 6213;
e.g., Pyo v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 626, 632 (1984). The burden
of proving that this Court has jurisdiction is on the taxpayer.
Cassell v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 313, 317-318 (1979); Patz Trust
v. Commissioner, 69 T.C. 497, 503 (1977). Moreover, each taxable
4 Petitioner also included two other Schedules C for two
other trade or business activities, with losses totaling $1,774.
These activities are not at issue in this case.
5 Petitioner made computational errors on his original
return but has conceded respondent’s computations. The amounts
of home mortgage interest and real estate taxes paid in 1998
attributable to his activity with Techmatics were $1,059 and $97,
respectively.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011