Robert J. Geiger - Page 6




                                        - 6 -                                          

               During his presentation at trial and in his brief,                      
          petitioner correctly (more or less) recited the general                      
          principles that govern the burden of proof in deficiency                     
          proceedings.  However, he mistakenly proceeded as though those               
          principles relieved him of his burden of proof in this case.                 
               Unlike taxpayers in Portillo v. Commissioner, supra,                    
          Anastasato v. Commissioner, supra, and Gerardo v. Commissioner,              
          supra, who denied receipt of all, or portions of, certain income             
          charged to each in notices of deficiency, petitioner has not                 
          denied, either in a pleading or in his testimony, that he                    
          received any of the items of income.  Unsupported by such a                  
          denial, his claim that respondent's determination is arbitrary               
          and excessive is itself nothing more than a "naked assertion"                
          that does not entitle him to the relief from the burden of proof             
          that he seeks.  Because petitioner did not deny receipt of some              
          or all of the items of income, or point to some other error made             
          in the notice of deficiency, we fail to see how respondent's                 
          determinations could be arbitrary and excessive.  See White v.               
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-459.                                           
               There is insufficient evidence in the record to apply the               
          body of law established in the line of cases upon which                      
          petitioner relies.  Petitioner's case-in-chief amounted to little            
          more than his testimony that he could not remember whether he                
          received any of the items of income.  As we advised petitioner at            
          trial, we consider his testimony in this regard incredible given             
          his educational background and apparent good health.  As                     

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

Last modified: May 25, 2011