Facts of case and trial

NOTE: Please review attached pretrial memorandum from Respondent page 7 (Legal Authorities). This is what the Judge stated would be in a Post trial brief. Also, all supporting documents were provided for each issue. See below also for what occurred during the trial. Let me know if you have any questions.


Petitioner disputed the Notice of Deficiancy (NOD) for lack of any affirmative allegations as to the disallowance of all expenses. 

Respondent indicated during trial and March 28, 2022 Pretrial memorandum the authenticity and relevance of documentation provided by petitioner regarding petitioners C1 and C2 business . Other than misprint errors or “Tx” error on one of the phone receipts (Respondent AT&T and Cricket Wireless subpoenaed witnesses were not in court to corroborate “Tx” is Texas which has no state taxes) on cell phone expenses totaling $7,676, Respondent agreed when asked by judge that other documentation for 2015 & 2016 for C1 and C2 business totaling $190,775 were authentic. 

Respondent Compliance department initiated tax year 2015 audit in 2016 and added tax year 2016 in 2017. This case was sent to Respondent in 2019. Respondent informed Petitioner and Tax Court Judge he has most of Petitioners documentation that Petitioner either provided to Compliance or Appeals and yet no evidence from Compliance, Respondent, expert witnesses or from other third parties regarding the authenticity of the documents. Respondent

When Petitioner responded to Respondent 91f motion to force stipulation, Judge requested during the conference that Petitioner and representative work with Respondent to add additional items listed on Petitioners response to 91f. Respondent refused to add the additional items. A typical example is Respondent on March 28, 2022 Pretrial memorandum listed the individuals Petitioner had Home Improvement contracts with as potential Motion to enforce subpoena but did not include the Home Improvement contracts as part of the documents during trial.

During trial, Respondent claimed that Petitioner did not provide names of people that may have assisted Petitioner with Home Improvement business but item 32 (Exhibit 16-P Petitioner’s insurance ID card) provided by Respondent clearly has under Petitioner’s name on the card, one of two individuals mentioned by petitioner during trial.

Respondent and Judge’s assertion during trial that Petitioner, a well know individual in Maryland may have stood outside Home Depot and collected receipts totaling $176,288 (2015-77,013 and 2016-99,275) from customers is absurd. Respondent continues to call into question all documents with out evidence or witness testimony. I request the judge to accept all documents Respondent has no documented proof of authenticity because on page 3 of Respondent pretrial memorandum, Respondent indicated an intention to call Representatives of the IRS to testify about the examination and issues in the case. In addition, to authenticate business records. Petitioner agrees that the IRS Representatives/Compliance would be in a position to authenticate business records but not only did the Representatives not show for trial, they did not send any signed documentation that would support Respondent unsupported allegations.

In tax years 2015 & 2016 Petitioner earned $256,815 in 1099 income and spent in expenses $198,451 with a net of $58,364 and Respondent continues to question where money for expenses came from. Although my wife was also available for support. 

Judge also laughed at Laguardia airport location on the mileage log without looking at the full address on the calendar. Respondent failed to include the second mileage log with the full address. 

ISSUES: See attached pretrial memorandum and response to those items in attached Petition- let me know if you have any questions


Response to Brief Synopsis of Legal authority from Pretrial Memorandum

Unreported Income:Petitioner concedes $24 in interest for tax year 2015 and $13 in interest for tax year 2016

Entitlement to C1 Expenses: Petitioner provided:

 Cricket wireless receipts-

ATT U-verse Statements

 payment summary from Liberty Christian School- added as professional education but should have been added as child care expense on return

Calendars- provided completed addresses where petitioner drove for Home Improvement business and doctors offices for IT business

Contracts- Listed on page 7 Respondent March 28, 2022 pretrial memorandum, Respondent states that he received contracts from Petitioner which connects mileage logs to home improve business but Respondent did not forward all documents on stipulated facts and still states there is no evidence tying my mileage logs to my home improvement business.

Contemporaneous mileage logs- the only logs that were non-contemporaneous where the logs with the complete addresses provided to compliance. The logs provided with incomplete address where contemporaneous

Invoices from Tire House Auto Center- Petitioner took standard mileage and not actual mileage. Actual mileage requires taxpayer to provide maintenance receipts but for reasons known to Respondent and his agents they continued to request that petitioner provide this invoice.

Copy of Petitioner’s insurance ID card- Shows three vehicles- 2 of which were used in petitioners 2 business- Mercedes and Ford expedition.

Entitlement to C2 Expenses: Petitioner provided:

Home Depot Receipts, Lowes Receipts and 84 Lumber Receipts- These were all paid in cash and per petitioners testimony during trial the payments were made in cash because petitioner at the time had a money market savings account that petitioner received payments from National Computer Services. Money market accounts at the time cannot be used at Point of sale but can be used at ATMs. I was asked about credit cards and I informed the court that I have a student loan default for decades that IRS is well aware of because my refunds are always scheduled to be intercepted. When you default on a federal loan you are unable to given any type of credit.

Contemporaneous mileage logs- the only logs that were non-contemporaneous where the logs with the complete addresses provided to compliance. The logs provided with incomplete address where contemporaneous

Bank Statement- Per Petitioner testimony during trial, Petitioner provided bank statement to Respondent via email but this was one of many documents not listed on the stipulated facts just like Respondent listed on pretrial memorandum to subpoena individuals that were under contact with Petitioner on Petitioner’s home improvement business but Respondent failed to include the contracts and invoices provided to Respondent for trial. Where did all these names on the memorandum come from? Also, my 1099 income from my IT business clearly is enough income to support Petitioner Home Improvement business; even if it did not then my wife listed on the mortgage interest statement and on exhibit 16-P would be able to provide support.

Work Authorization Forms- Listed on page 7 Respondent March 28, 2022 pretrial memorandum, Respondent states that he received Work Authorization Form which states that I was required to travel to medical professionals offices for the new Electronic Health Records system but Respondent did not include this document as part of the stipulated facts (like the home improvement contracts) for trial and still claims I provided no evidence tying my travel to my Information Technology business. 



At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )