Beverlee Cochrane - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         
          tively.  The Internal Revenue Service (Service) has no record               
          that petitioner filed her 1989 and 1990 tax returns on those                
          respective dates or on any other dates.  Nor does the Service               
          have a record that petitioner filed tax returns for 1991, 1992,             
          and 1993.                                                                   
               Tax was withheld in the amounts of $330 and $58 from the               
          wages that petitioner received during 1989 and 1993, respec-                
          tively.  No tax was withheld from the $18 of wages that peti-               
          tioner received during each of the years 1990 and 1991.  No tax             
          was withheld for petitioner’s taxable year 1992 because she                 
          received no wages during that taxable year.                                 
               On April 10, 1998, respondent sent petitioner a notice of              
          deficiency (notice) with respect to her taxable years 1989, 1990,           
          and 1991 and a separate notice with respect to her taxable years            
          1992 and 1993.  In those notices, respondent determined, inter              
          alia, that petitioner had failed to file tax returns for the                
          years at issue, that she is liable for additions to tax under               
          section 6651(a)(1) for those years, and that she is liable for              
          additions to tax under section 6654 for her taxable years 1990,             
          1991, and 1992.                                                             
               Petitioner bears the burden of showing error in the determi-           
          nations in the notices.  See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290           
          U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  We reject petitioner’s argument that the             
          standard of proof applicable in criminal proceedings is control-            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011