- 4 -
and amount applied from 2001 return”.3 On line 43, petitioner
listed the $2,256 sum of lines 39 and 40 as his “total payments”.
Petitioner also incorrectly showed this sum on line 42 as an
“Additional child tax credit” but did not otherwise reflect such
an additional child tax credit in claiming the $2,256
overpayment, as reported on line 44. Petitioner claimed “0” as
the amount of earned income credit.
In the notice of deficiency, respondent determined that
petitioner was liable for a 10-percent additional tax on
premature distributions from a qualified retirement plan. In
addition, the notice of deficiency showed an increase in
petitioner’s tax liability of $2,256 resulting from the
disallowance of an additional child tax credit and an increase of
$25 resulting from a reduction of earned income credit.4
3 Apparently, $1,725 was petitioner’s estimate of the $1,738
that the Treasury Department had previously paid over to DOE.
4 In the notice of deficiency, respondent also disallowed a
$4,618 IRA deduction that petitioner claimed on his Form 1040A.
Petitioner has not expressly raised this issue either in his
petition, at trial, or on brief (other than to state generally on
brief that he disagrees with “the remaining issues” in the notice
of deficiency). The parties have stipulated as to the
correctness of amounts shown on lines 7 through 21 of a revised
Form 1040A that is in evidence. Line 17 of this revised Form
1040A shows zero as the amount of petitioner’s IRA deduction. We
deem petitioner to have waived and conceded any claim of
entitlement to the disallowed IRA deduction. See, e.g., Rinn v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-246.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011