Diana L. Gray - Page 3




                                        - 2 -                                         
          be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and this opinion           
          shall not be treated as precedent for any other case.                       
               Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner’s 2003 and            
          2004 Federal income taxes of $1,974 and $2,000, respectively.               
          After concessions,2 the only issue remaining is whether                     
          petitioner is entitled to a tuition and fees deduction of $4,000            
          in 2004.                                                                    
               Petitioner submitted a Form 1098-T, Tuition Statement,                 
          demonstrating that she was billed for qualified tuition and                 
          related expenses of $4,007 in 2004.  On her 2004 Federal income             
          tax return, petitioner deducted $4,000 for tuition and fees                 
          expenses.  Respondent concedes that petitioner is entitled to the           
          deduction for tuition and fees if the Court finds that petitioner           
          is entitled to single filing status.                                        
                                     Discussion                                       
               Generally, petitioner bears the burden of proof.  Rule                 
          142(a).  Respondent, however, bears the burden of proof with                
          respect to any new matter.  Id.  An assertion is treated as a new           
          matter when it either increases the original deficiency or                  
          requires the presentation of different evidence.  Shea v.                   




               2 The parties agreed that petitioner is entitled to itemized           
          deductions for charitable contributions of $1,040 in both 2003              
          and 2004.  Petitioner did not contest the adjustments in the                
          notice of deficiency not discussed in this opinion.                         






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 10, 2007