- 23 -
able as a deduction (excess contribution). Mr. McVeigh advised
petitioner that he could make excess contributions, with the only
consequence being that he could not deduct them.
After Mr. McVeigh prepared petitioner's return for each of
the years at issue, he provided petitioner with a copy of each
such return and pointed out to him the amount of tax that each
such return showed as due. Petitioner did not review any of
those returns and was merely interested in knowing the amount of
tax due so that he could write a check for that amount.
OPINION
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent's
determinations in the notice are erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch
v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Petitioner attempted to satisfy his burden of proof in this
case through his own testimony and that of Mr. McVeigh and Ms.
Lyman. We found the testimony of Mr. McVeigh and Ms. Lyman to be
credible. We found petitioner's testimony to be general, vague,
conclusory, and/or questionable in certain material respects.
Under the circumstances presented here, we are not required to,
and we generally do not, rely on petitioner's testimony to
sustain his burden of establishing error in respondent's determi-
nations. See Lerch v. Commissioner, 877 F.2d 624, 631-632 (7th
Cir. 1989), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-295; Geiger v. Commissioner,
440 F.2d 688, 689-690 (9th Cir. 1971), affg. per curiam T.C.
Memo. 1969-159; Tokarski v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986).
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011