- 5 -
OPINION
Petitioner does not deny receipt of any of the items of
income. Nor does he claim that any particular item of income has
been overstated or should be reduced either on technical or
factual grounds. Furthermore, he does not claim entitlement to
deductions or credits not already allowed in the notice of
deficiency, and he does not contend that respondent erred in
determining his filing status.
Petitioner is aware and understands that, in general,
determinations made by the Commissioner in a notice of deficiency
are presumptively correct, and the taxpayer has the burden of
proving them in error. Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S.
111, 115 (1933). However, relying upon cases such as Portillo v.
Commissioner, 932 F.2d 1128 (5th Cir. 1991), affg. in part, revg.
in part and remanding T.C. Memo. 1990-68; Anastasato v.
Commissioner, 794 F.2d 884 (3d Cir. 1986), vacating and remanding
T.C. Memo. 1985-101; and Gerardo v. Commissioner, 552 F.2d 549
(3d Cir. 1977), affg. in part, revg. in part and remanding T.C.
Memo. 1975-341, petitioner takes the position that the
determinations made in the notice of deficiency in this case are
arbitrary and excessive, and therefore the determinations are not
entitled to a presumption of correctness. Petitioner goes on to
argue that without the presumption of correctness, the
determinations made in the notice of deficiency cannot be
sustained. According to petitioner, the determinations are
invalid because they are based upon "naked assertions".
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011