- 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