Vanessa K. Bernardo - Page 2

                                        - 2 -                                         

                    1.  Held:  R’s denial of deductions is sustained.                 
                    2.  Held, further, R’s denial of a dependency                     
               exemption for M and of head of household filing status                 
               is sustained.                                                          
                    3.  Held, further, R’s penalty against P is                       
               sustained, in part, under sec. 6662, I.R.C.                            


               Vanessa K. Bernardo, pro se.                                           
               Michele A. Yates, for respondent.                                      


                       MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION                        
               HALPERN, Judge:  By notice of deficiency dated October 7,              
          2002, respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s 1999               
          Federal income tax of $4,616 and an accuracy- related penalty of            
          $923.  By the petition, petitioner (1) assigned error to                    
          respondent’s determinations of a deficiency and a penalty and (2)           
          claimed an overpayment in tax of $3,498.  After concessions,1 the           
          issues for decision are (1) whether petitioner is entitled to a             

               1  The parties stipulated that, during the audit of her 1999           
          return, petitioner conceded the disallowance of a $9,172                    
          deduction for business use of her home that had been claimed on             
          that return.  Petitioner reaffirmed that concession at the                  
          beginning of the trial when, in response to the Court’s inquiry             
          as to whether petitioner agreed with respondent’s counsel’s                 
          description of the remaining issues in the case (which included             
          counsel’s statement that the $9,172 home office deduction “has              
          been conceded by petitioner”), she replied:  “Yes I do, your                
          Honor.”  Therefore, we treat that deduction disallowance as                 
          conceded and reject petitioner’s attempt, on brief, to resurrect            
          the issue on the alleged ground that her concession was                     
          contingent on an overall settlement of the case prior to trial.             





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011