Robert Lee McWilliams - Page 8

                                               - 8 -                                                  
            expense deductions, was not entitled to net operating loss deductions or                  
            general business credits, had understated his Schedule E rental income, had               
            not substantiated certain amounts of Schedule E rental expenses, realized and             
            recognized a capital gain upon the disposition of his TSI stock, and was                  
            liable for the additions to tax for fraud and substantial understatement of               
            Federal income tax for the years in issue.  In the alternative, respondent                
            determined that petitioner was liable for additions to tax for negligence and             
            delinquency for failure to timely file Federal income tax returns for years               
            1986 and 1987.                                                                            
                                               OPINION                                                
                  Before dealing with the principal issues in the instant case, we will               
            deal with two preliminary matters.  First, petitioner contends that                       
            respondent's determinations in the notice of deficiency should not be given a             
            presumption of correctness because the determinations are arbitrary.  His                 
            argument implies that because respondent has made a number of concessions, the            
            notice of deficiency is therefore arbitrary.  We find no merit to this                    
            argument.  To overcome the presumption of correctness, a taxpayer must prove              
            by a preponderance of the evidence that the deficiency was arbitrarily                    
            derived.  Shriver v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 1 (1985), affd. per order (7th Cir.            
            1986); Dellacroce v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 269 (1984); Llorente v.                        
            Commissioner, 74 T.C. 260 (1980), affd. in part and revd. in part 649 F.2d 152            
            (2d Cir. 1981).  Moreover, a determination that some part of a deficiency is              
            erroneous does not necessarily make the deficiency notice arbitrary and shift             
            the burden of proof to respondent.  Wells v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1983-               
            788.  Furthermore, before a trial in the Tax Court, both parties are required             
            to stipulate all matters to the maximum extent possible.  See U.S. Tax Court              
            Standing Pre-Trial Order.  Accordingly, we hold that the burden of proof                  
            remains with petitioner.                                                                  
                  Second, petitioner argues that respondent is collaterally estopped from             
            her determinations because respondent has previously approved petitioner's                




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011