- 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,
12(...continued)
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
Bankers.
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