James V. & Melinda S. Edmiston - Page 3

                                        - 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             
               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.             
               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                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011