- 5 - The alleged Notice of Deficiency has fail [sic] to prove that the petitioner was engaged in any income- producing activity during the years of the deficiency notice. Nor is their [sic] any evidence that the respondent's determination was based on information, other than that of presumption, concerning petitioner's alleged income-producing activities during the years in issue. Petitioner then contends that respondent bears the burden of proof, and he offers what purports to be a memorandum of law on such matter. However, petitioner's "memorandum of law" is nothing other than an extended excerpt from this Court's opinion in Senter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-311, which has been subtly modified to make it appear as if it were petitioner's own submission. Respondent's Rule 40 Motion and Subsequent Developments As indicated, respondent filed a Motion To Dismiss For Failure To State A Claim Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted.2 On 2 Respondent subsequently supplemented her motion to dismiss in two respects. First, respondent supplemented her motion to account for an error in the determination of the addition to tax under sec. 6654(a) for 1991. In this regard, respondent acknowledges that the computation of such addition should take into account two payments made by petitioner in 1992 in the aggregate amount of $3,000. Accordingly, such addition has been reduced from $1,098 to $169.83. Second, respondent supplemented her motion to decrease the total amount of income that petitioner failed to report for 1992. In this regard, respondent now asserts that petitioner failed to report $34,726; i.e., the amount disclosed by petitioner as "Total income" on petitioner's Form 1040X for 1992. Thus: (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011