- 6 -
has not produced any predicate evidence that supports her
determinations. He asserts that respondent's reconstruction of
income is incorrect. Specifically, Charles claims that in the
source and application of funds prepared by respondent, a source
was erroneously listed as an application. Furthermore, he
asserts that the starting and ending bank balances were
incorrect. Recognizing that his denials and assertions could be
considered merely self-serving statements, Charles refers to
certain documents, including financial statements, a net worth
calculation, and a statement of source and application of funds.
The main thrust of Charles' motion is that respondent has
determined a tax liability against Charles which requires him to
come into Court and attempt to prove a negative; i.e., that he
did not receive unreported income. Charles cites a line of cases
wherein the statutory notice was found to be arbitrary and
without a presumption of correctness. E.g., Weimerskirch v.
Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358 (9th Cir. 1979), revg. 67 T.C. 672
(1977); see also Erickson v. Commissioner, 937 F.2d 1548 (10th
Cir. 1991), affg. T.C. Memo. 1989-522; Portillo v. Commissioner,
932 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir. 1991), affg. in part and revg. in part
T.C. Memo. 1990-68. Charles' reliance is misplaced. The cases
cited by him do not support the proposition that if a statutory
notice of deficiency is found to be arbitrary, then the taxpayer
is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. Instead, as we
stated in Jackson v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 394 (1979), what
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011