- 4 - advanced in the past. See, e.g., McKee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-143. B. Whether Petitioner Is a “Citizen” Subject to the Income Tax Requirements and/or Whether the Compensation He Received for Labor Is Taxable to Him Within the Meaning of the Internal Revenue Code Here again, these arguments are well worn and have been rejected on numerous occasions. See, e.g., Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264 (8th Cir. 1982), affg. T.C. Memo. 1981-506; Hayward v. Day, 619 F.2d 716, 717 (8th Cir. 1980); Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 407 (1984); Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1119-1122 (1983); Reiff v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1169, 1173 (1981); Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978), affd. per curiam 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980). C. May Respondent Rely on the Form 1099 Information Contained in His Records To Determine an Income Tax Deficiency? The essence of petitioner’s argument is that the information relied on by respondent is (1) hearsay and (2) that respondent should not be allowed to prove that petitioner received $19,703 from Best Mobile Home Service & Repair and $20,535 from A. M. Construction without testimony from third parties. First, we note that petitioner must show that respondent’s determination is in error. See Rule 142(a).2 Respondent 2 At trial, petitioner referenced the Taxpayer Bill of Rights as applying to this case. However, the burden of proof provisions of sec. 7491 do not apply here because the examination (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011