- 4 - At the call of this case from the calendar, both parties appeared, and respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution (respondent's motion) because of petitioner's failure to cooperate with respondent in preparing this case for trial or in settling it. Based on petitioner's representations to the Court that he wanted to have a trial and that he intended to present evidence at trial in support of his position that the notices are in error, the Court denied respondent's motion. Discussion Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent's determinations in the notices are erroneous. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). Petitioner contends that respondent's use of the CPI roll- over method to reconstruct his income for the years at issue is unfair and arbitrary. We disagree. The CPI rollover method is a reasonable method of reconstructing income. See Moore v. Commis- sioner, 722 F.2d 193, 196 (5th Cir. 1984), affg. T.C. Memo. 1983- 20. Moreover, petitioner admitted at trial (1) that he worked 2(...continued) tion. For that reason, the Code is very explicit in omit- ting the term "the 50 states" from the definition of "United States" when applicable to Subtitle A "1040 Taxes" * * *. Therefore, since my activities were not licenced, they were not taxable and since I did not voluntarily enter into the federal jurisdiction through filing a return, which filing is not mandated by statute, then the assessment against me is erroneous. * * * [Fn. ref. omitted.]Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011