Michael L. Goers - Page 4

                                        - 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            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011