Howard H. Thompson, Jr. - Page 28

                                       - 28 -                                         
          taxable years 1994, 1995, and 1996.  In that notice, respondent             
          determined, inter alia, that for each of the years 1995 and 1996            
          petitioner has unreported income of $9,925 from Polaris.  Respon-           
          dent further determined in the notice that for 1996 petitioner              
          has unreported income of $16,450 from the sale of vending ma-               
          chines9 and $122,391 of unreported “EMBEZZELMENT [sic] FORM 1099”           
          income.  Respondent further determined in the notice that peti-             
          tioner is liable for 1996 for an addition to tax under section              
          6651(a)(1).                                                                 
                                       OPINION                                        
               Petitioner bears the burden of showing error in the determi-           
          nations in the notice that remain at issue.10  See Rule 142(a);             
          Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).                               
               The only issues that remain for decision relate to                     
          (1) certain alleged unreported income for each of the taxable               


               9In the notice, respondent erroneously referred to the                 
          arcade games that petitioner sold to Reality Entertainment around           
          May 1, 1996, as vending machines.  Petitioner does not dispute              
          that respondent’s determination in the notice with respect to the           
          $16,450 of unreported income for 1996 relates to the sale of the            
          arcade games.                                                               
               10Petitioner does not contend that sec. 7491 is applicable             
          in this case.  Even if petitioner had advanced such a contention,           
          he has not established that he has complied with the applicable             
          requirements of sec. 7491(a)(2).  Under the circumstances pre-              
          sented in this case, we conclude (1) that the burden of proof               
          does not shift to respondent under sec. 7491(a)(1) with respect             
          to the deficiency determinations and (2) that respondent does not           
          have the burden of production under sec. 7491(c) with respect to            
          the addition to tax under sec. 6651(a)(1).                                  





Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011