- 7 -
deductions of $0.08, and determined a deficiency in tax of $574,
which equals the aforementioned abatement and refund respondent
had erroneously paid to petitioner.6 In the notice of deficiency
for 1994, respondent determined that petitioner had $21,513 in
wages, $55 in interest income, a $4 taxable distribution from an
Individual Retirement Account (IRA), and a $337 State income tax
refund. Respondent allowed petitioner the standard deduction of
$3,800. These adjustments resulted in a deficiency in tax of
$2,719. Respondent allowed a withholding credit of $1,004,
resulting in a balance due of $1,715. Adjustments in the notices
of deficiency were based on information reported to respondent by
various payers.
The determinations of the Commissioner in a notice of
deficiency are presumed correct, and the burden is on the
taxpayer to prove that the determinations are in error. Rule
142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111 (1933).
The first issue is whether petitioner is liable for Federal
income taxes on income of $2,040.63 for 1992, and income of
$21,909 for 1994, as determined by respondent in the notices of
deficiency. Petitioner admitted at trial that he was employed in
several different jobs during 1992, and that, during such year,
6
The Court notes that petitioner failed to advance an
argument, either in his pleadings or at trial, as to respondent's
disallowance of $0.08 in itemized deductions. Thus, the Court
considers this issue to have been abandoned by petitioner, and
respondent is sustained thereon.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011