Wilbur Kenneth Griesmer - Page 10

                                        - 10 -                                         

          fanciful, completely unsupported by any documentary evidence, and            
          not otherwise corroborated.  In addition, the record includes                
          indications contrary to petitioner's assertions.  For example, we            
          are not convinced that petitioner had the financial resources to             
          incur expenses of the magnitude claimed on his Schedules C.                  
               In view of the foregoing, we sustain respondent's                       
          determination on this issue.                                                 
               Next, we consider whether petitioner's net capital loss                 
          should be limited to $282 as opposed to $2,864, as claimed on his            
          1995 Federal income tax return.  Respondent contends that the                
          discrepancy is due to a math error made by petitioner, changes in            
          petitioner's cost basis, and the omission of certain                         
          transactions.  Petitioner failed to produce any evidence,                    
          including testimony, regarding this matter.  In light of                     
          petitioner's complete failure of proof, we sustain respondent's              
          determination on this issue.  See Rule 142(a); INDOPCO, Inc. v.              
          Commissioner, supra; Welch v. Helvering, supra.                              
               Finally, we consider whether petitioner is liable for the               
          accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a) for 1995 and 1996.            
               Section 6662(a) and (b)(1) provides that if any portion of              
          an underpayment of tax is attributable to negligence or disregard            
          of rules or regulations, then there shall be added to the tax an             
          amount equal to 20 percent of the amount of the underpayment that            
          is so attributable.  The term "negligence" includes any failure              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011