-6-
without assessment, at any time." Petitioners did not file a
return for any of the years at issue. Consequently, the respec-
tive periods of limitations applicable to those years have not
expired.
Petitioners also contend on brief:
The tax returns for petitioners for the years 1982-1987
were prepared by respondent using information summoned
from petitioners and produced by them under protest.
The deficiencies claimed by respondent for the years
1982-1987 are based on the records seized from peti-
tioners. Petitioners filed this appeal claiming the
income attributed to them is not correct and that they
were not granted the benefit of proper deductions and
various elections, especially filing status. Petition-
ers contend that their records were seized in violation
of their right to privacy. Indeed, if a citizen has a
right to privacy concerning sexual acts and the killing
of an unborn child, petitioners have the right to
privacy with regard to their income. Those records
were used by respondent, despite petitioners' objec-
tion, to * * * prepare tax returns. Petitioners dis-
agree with the content of those returns. Petitioners
have stated their objections. Respondent listed the
person who prepared the returns as a witness, but did
not call him to testify. There was no testimony or
evidence introduced by respondent at the trial to
substantiate income attributable to petitioners. In
the absence of such testimony or evidence, the court
must conclude that there are no deficiencies.
We reject petitioners' position. Petitioners have not submitted
any evidence, such as the records which they provided to respon-
dent, that supports their general and conclusory contention that
respondent's income determinations, which they concede were based
on those records, are in error. Nor have petitioners supported
on the record before us their general and conclusory assertion
that respondent incorrectly determined the deductions and elec-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011