You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Kay v. Commissioner

Citation: 85 F. App'x 362Docket: No. m 03-60186

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; December 22, 2003; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Perry Kay, Sr. appeals the Tax Court's determination of a 1998 income tax deficiency amounting to $1,174. The Tax Court initially claimed a higher deficiency of $4,181.50 but reduced it after finding that Kay failed to substantiate all claimed deductions. The Tax Court's comprehensive opinion, filed on August 8, 2002, explains its rationale for the reduction and the burden of proof required. The appellate court affirms the Tax Court's decision based on its reasoning. The opinion is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent under 5th Cir. R. 47.5, except in specific limited circumstances outlined in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Legal Issues Addressed

Affirmation of Tax Court Decisions

Application: The appellate court affirmed the Tax Court's decision based on its reasoning, indicating that the appellate court found no error in the Tax Court's judgment.

Reasoning: The appellate court affirms the Tax Court's decision based on its reasoning.

Burden of Proof in Tax Deficiency Cases

Application: The taxpayer, Perry Kay, Sr., was required to substantiate claimed deductions to meet the burden of proof necessary to contest the IRS's determination of a tax deficiency.

Reasoning: The Tax Court initially claimed a higher deficiency of $4,181.50 but reduced it after finding that Kay failed to substantiate all claimed deductions.

Non-Precedential Opinions

Application: The opinion is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except under specific limited circumstances outlined in the Fifth Circuit rules.

Reasoning: The opinion is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent under 5th Cir. R. 47.5, except in specific limited circumstances outlined in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.