- 7 -
irrelevant. Mr. Ray's attempt to raise the burden of proof in
light of the concessions at trial is patently unreasonable. As a
further matter, we note that, even if the burden of proof were an
issue, petitioners' argument is without merit. There is no
question that a taxpayer generally bears the burden of proving
that the Commissioner's determination is erroneous. See Rockwell
v. Commissioner, 512 F.2d 882 (9th Cir. 1975), affg. T.C. Memo.
1972-133; INDOPCO, Inc. v. Commissioner, 503 U.S. 79, 84 (1992).
As previously indicated, we will not address Mr. Ray's other
arguments. To do so may suggest that these arguments are
tenable. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit responded to
similar tax protestor arguments as follows: "We perceive no need
to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious
citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these
arguments have some colorable merit." Crain v. Commissioner,
supra at 1417. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
followed Crain v. Commissioner, supra, in Sauers v. Commissioner,
771 F.2d 64, 67 (3d Cir. 1985), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-367.
The final issue pertains to respondent's motion for
penalties and costs pursuant to section 6673.5 In their
5 Sec. 6673(a) provides:
(1) Procedures instituted primarily for delay,
etc.--Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that--
(A) proceedings before it have been
instituted or maintained by the taxpayer
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011