- 6 -
Here petitioner has the burden of proof to show that
respondent's determinations are erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v.
Helvering, 290 U.S 111 (1933); Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C.
766, 773 (1984), affd. 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986). Petitioner
has not met that burden in this matter as his only objections to
respondent's determined deficiencies in and additions to tax are
based on frivolous tax protestor arguments. We need not address
these arguments,5 see Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th
Cir. 1984).
One of the purposes of summary judgment, as provided by
Rule 121, is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported
claims or defenses. Celotex v. Catrett, supra at 324; see also
Shiosaki v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 861, 862 (1974). To that end,
respondent's motion is appropriate in this case. Petitioner
admits that he received "compensation" and that he did not file
Federal income tax returns reporting income.6 We find that there
is a complete failure of proof by petitioner; he can point to no
evidence in the record to show that respondent's determinations
are incorrect. Based on the record, respondent is entitled to
establish one or more essential elements of a claim on which the
opposing party has the burden of proof, trial would be a bootless
exercise, fated for an inevitable result".
5We direct petitioner's attention to respondent's memorandum
in support of her motion for summary judgment for cases holding
petitioner's tired claims to be absurd.
6Petitioner refused to say whether he filed Illinois income
tax returns for the years at issue.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011