Gregg H. Risner - Page 6

                                        - 6 -                                         
               This matter was called for hearing in Washington, D.C.                 
          Counsel for respondent appeared at the hearing and presented                
          argument in opposition to the pending motion.  Although                     
          petitioner did not appear at the hearing, he did file a written             
          statement with the Court pursuant to Rule 50(c), in response to             
          respondent's objection to his motion.  In that statement,                   
          petitioner asserts that the compensation that he receives in                
          exchange for his labor is not income as defined in the Internal             
          Revenue Code.  Petitioner also contends that he is not subject to           
          the Federal income tax because he is a "Self-governing Free Born            
          Sovereign Citizen".  Significantly, petitioner admits that he               
          receives compensation from the operation of a chiropractic                  
          business.  He asserts that any gains earned on his investments do           
          not constitute taxable income.                                              
          Discussion                                                                  
               We begin with the well-settled rule that determinations made           
          by the Commissioner in a notice of deficiency normally are                  
          presumed to be correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of                
          proving that those determinations are erroneous.  Rule 142(a);              
          Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  In addition, this            
          Court ordinarily will not look behind a statutory notice of                 
          deficiency to examine the evidence used or the propriety of                 
          respondent's motives or conduct in determining the deficiency.              
          Riland v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 185, 201 (1982); Greenberg's                
          Express, Inc. v. Commissioner, 62 T.C. 324, 327 (1974).                     




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011