- 3 -
We decide this case based upon the basic principle that the
burden of establishing error in the deficiency notice or
establishing claims raised in the petition or at trial rests upon
petitioner. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115
(1933).
Apart from the few facts that were stipulated, there is no
probative evidence in the record. Almost all of Mr. Edmiston's
testimony at trial may be characterized as tax "protester"
rhetoric. He questioned the validity of his joint individual
income tax return because of the absence of OMB (Office of
Management and Budget) numbers from Form 1040 and stated his
belief that only Federal employees are subject to Federal income
tax. We see no need to address these or similar arguments of
petitioner. See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir.
1984).
Petitioner, in response to a question by the Court, did
testify that during the year 1991 he was involved in certain
"business ventures". He testified that he was "selling land in
LA for a company named EIC" and doing "undercover work" for
banks. Petitioner further testified that he had "substantial"
expenses, connected with these activities, that he correctly
reported. At trial, however, Mr. Edmiston presented no
documentation to substantiate any of his claimed Schedule C
expenses.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011