- 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