James E. Stafford - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         

              Consequently, neither the BATF transfer nor the implementing           
          regulations argument helps petitioner.  They provide no grounds             
          to deny respondent's motion for summary judgment, nor do they               
          justify petitioner's refusal to provide responsive answers to               
          respondent's proposed stipulations and requests for admission.              
          1.  The Deficiencies and Additions to Tax for Failure To Pay                
          Estimated Tax Under Section 6654 for Tax Years 1982-88                      
              Respondent's determinations of income tax deficiencies in               
          the notice of deficiency are presumed correct, and it is                    
          petitioner's burden to prove that they are incorrect.  Rule                 
          142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  The                  
          section 6654 addition to tax for failure to pay estimated tax is            
          mandatory unless petitioner establishes that a statutory                    
          exception applies.  Grosshandler v. Commissioner, 75 T.C. 1,                
          20-21 (1980).                                                               
              Throughout these proceedings, petitioner has refused to                 
          offer any evidence directed towards the deficiencies or the                 
          section 6654 additions to tax as determined in the notice of                
          deficiency.  Moreover, for the reasons stated previously,                   

               Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would                     
               impose no penalties on anyone.                                         
          However, the Supreme Court was therein describing the particular            
          statutory scheme of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, under which               
          regulations were required to be promulgated before the penalties            
          in the statute could attach.  The situation in the instant case             
          is clearly distinguishable.  As discussed supra, the authority              
          being exercised with respect to petitioner is expressly provided            
          by statute.  Such authority is not preconditioned on the                    
          promulgation of regulations, as were the penalties in California            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011