- 8 -
1991)), affd. without published opinion 15 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir.
1993); see also Aldrich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-290,
n.3.
Finally, petitioner argues that the Court does not have
jurisdiction over additions to tax. Petitioner is incorrect.
Our jurisdiction in this case is based on the valid notice of
deficiency issued by respondent and the timely filed petition.
See Rule 13(a), (c); Normac, Inc. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 142,
147 (1988). Section 6214(a) gives the Court “jurisdiction to
redetermine the correct amount of the deficiency * * * and to
determine whether any additional amount, or any addition to the
tax should be assessed”. Further, section 6665(a) provides that
in general additions to tax are to be paid, assessed, and
collected in the same manner as taxes. There is an exception to
section 6665(a) in section 6665(b), but the exception does not
apply in the two situations present in the instant case; namely,
the portion of the addition to tax under section 6651(a) that is
attributable to the deficiency, and the entire addition to tax
under section 6654 where no return is filed. See sec. 6665(b)(1)
and (2); Estate of DiRezza v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 19 (1982);
Reese v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-346.
Petitioner has the burden of proof. See Rule 142(a); Welch
v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933). As noted, petitioner
does not dispute the facts in this case. Thus, we find that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011