- 7 -
contention, petitioner maintains that justiciable issues remain
in this case insofar as the Court is required to decide whether
the normal presumption of correctness is applicable and to make
the proper assignment of the burden of proof.
We agree with respondent that petitioner has failed to state
a claim for relief. Viewing the amended petition in isolation,
the best that can be said is that petitioner disagrees with
respondent's determinations. However, the amended petition lacks
either a clear and concise statement of the errors allegedly
committed by respondent in the determination of the deficiencies
or a statement of the facts on which petitioner bases his
assignments of error. We observe that upon receipt of a notice
of deficiency determining unreported income, a taxpayer can
reasonably be expected to support an allegation that the
Commissioner erred in determining a deficiency in tax by stating
facts tending to show that the taxpayer was unemployed, earned a
lower amount of income, or otherwise did not receive the payments
reported to respondent by third-party payors. The amended
petition lacks any such statement.
Similarly, the arguments set forth in petitioner's reply,
i.e., that the notice of deficiency is not entitled to the normal
presumption of correctness and that respondent should bear the
burden of proof, are inadequate to state a claim for relief. We
agree with respondent that the Court of Appeals' analysis in
Parker v. Commissioner, supra, is controlling in this regard.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011