- 6 -
The Commissioner's deficiency determination is generally
afforded a presumption of correctness. United States v. Janis,
428 U.S. 433, 441-442 (1976); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111,
115 (1933). However, in nonfiler cases, such as this one, there
are decisions holding that the Commissioner cannot sustain a
deficiency determination or assessment unless there is some
predicate evidence showing that the taxpayer received income from
the charged activity. United States v. Janis, supra at 442;
Anastasato v. Commissioner, 794 F.2d 884, 887 (3d Cir. 1986);
Gerardo v. Commissioner, 552 F.2d 549, 554 (3d Cir. 1977); see
also Dellacroce v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 269 (1984). The
evidentiary foundation need only be minimal. Weimerskirch v.
Commissioner, 596 F.2d 358, 361 (9th Cir. 1979).
Petitioner has incorrectly asserted that respondent has
presented no such evidence. As previously indicated, the
evidence links petitioner to an income-producing activity. It
also shows that he carried on his hearing aid business in
Colorado and other States and in foreign countries. In view of
these facts and circumstances, we conclude that respondent's
determination has not been shown to be either arbitrary or
excessive. The burden of proving error in the determination
remained with petitioner. He failed to carry it.
Petitioner's reliance on Senter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1995-311, is misplaced. In Senter the Commissioner produced no
predicate evidence that the taxpayer received unreported income
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011