- 3 -
OPINION
At the outset, we note that petitioner failed to cooperate
with respondent and as a result, has the burden of proof. Sec.
7491(a)(2)(B); Rule 142(a).1 Petitioner contends that she is
entitled to a section 166 bad debt deduction relating to the
note. She also contends that in 1998, the first lien holder
attempted to foreclose on the property, and that she attempted to
collect on the note in that year. The note is a bona fide debt
and became due in 1998 when Ms. Moore died. Petitioner, however,
claimed a deduction for the unpaid debt on her 1999 tax return.
Even though the note was due in 1998, petitioner failed to
establish when the debt became worthless. Aston v. Commissioner,
109 T.C. 400 (1997); sec. 1.166-5(a)(2), Income Tax Regs.
Accordingly, she is not entitled to a deduction.
Petitioner contends that the 10-percent additional tax,
pursuant to section 72(t)(1), is inapplicable, because she
qualifies for the disability exception pursuant to section
72(t)(2). She, however, failed to establish that she was “unable
to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any
medically determinable physical or mental impairment”. Sec.
72(m)(7). Although petitioner had a digestive disorder and was
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and
all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and
Procedure.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011