- 3 -
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 183, 191 (1999); Wayne Bolt & Nut Co. v.
Commissioner, 93 T.C. 500, 507 (1989).
In the notice of deficiency, respondent’s basis for
disallowing petitioner’s 2004 tuition and fees deduction was that
petitioner “did not furnish information needed to support the
claimed deduction.” At trial, when the Court asked respondent’s
counsel what information petitioner needed to support the tuition
and fees deduction, respondent replied: “I think it was proving
that they were qualified tuition expenses, which the Respondent
no longer disputes.”
Respondent’s position at trial was that petitioner must also
prove that she was entitled to single, as opposed to married
filing separately, filing status in order to be entitled to the
tuition and fees deduction. See sec. 222(d)(4). The notice of
deficiency does not provide this as a reason for disallowing
petitioner’s tuition and fees deduction. Respondent did not file
an answer to the petition.3 Respondent first argued that a
married filing separately filing status caused petitioner to be
ineligible for a tuition and fees deduction when the case was
called for trial.
3 Rule 173(b), as in effect for small tax cases in which the
petition was filed before Mar. 14, 2007, provides that no answer
is required to be filed, except where there is an issue on which
the Commissioner bears the burden of proof or where the Court
otherwise directs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007