Randal W. Howard - Page 4

                                        - 4 -                                         

          permanent, personal, place of abode is in Arizona; he is not a              
          "taxpayer within the meaning of the Code"; the issuances of the             
          notices of deficiency to petitioner are invalid because various             
          delegation orders in the structure of the Treasury Department               
          were never promulgated in the Federal Register, and numerous                
          other nonsensical allegations that have absolutely no legal                 
          merit.  None of the allegations address the adjustments relating            
          to petitioner's income or expenses for the years at issue.                  
               The case was calendared for trial, and, at the commencement            
          of the session, when the case was called from the calendar,                 
          petitioner appeared for trial.  At the conclusion of the calendar           
          call, the Court announced the date and time that petitioner's               
          case would be heard.  Petitioner signed a stipulation of facts,             
          which he left with counsel for respondent.  At the time set for             
          trial of the case, petitioner failed to appear to present                   
          additional evidence.  The stipulation of facts was submitted into           
          evidence, and the Court declared for the record that petitioner             
          had rested his case.  Respondent offered no witnesses or other              
          documentary evidence, whereupon the Court declared the record of            
          the case closed, and the case was taken under advisement.                   
               The determinations of respondent in a notice of deficiency             
          are presumed correct, and the taxpayer bears the burden of                  
          proving that the determinations are in error.  Rule 142(a); Welch           
          v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  The only evidence                  

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011