David White - Page 7

                                        - 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