- 14 -
The issue for decision is whether respondent properly
determined the subject tax deficiencies, penalties, and
additions to tax. Petitioners bear the burden of proof as
to this issue. See Rule 142(a); New Colonial Ice Co. v.
Helvering, 292 U.S. 435 (1934).
Although petitioners bear the burden of proof, they
have failed or refused to provide the Court with a state-
ment of the issues for decision in this case or their
position regarding any such issues for decision. In fact,
as mentioned above, on two occasions prior to trial, the
Court ordered petitioners to submit a statement of "each
and every issue presented in this case" for decision and,
on both occasions, petitioners failed to respond.
Petitioners also disregarded orders of the Court to file
a trial memorandum and posttrial briefs.
The only basis for petitioners' disagreement with the
adjustments in the notice of deficiency that is contained
in the record of this case is the statement in the amended
petition that Mr. Hartman had "scheduling difficulties
with the local examiner" and was not able "to properly
establish the validity of the disputed deductions." That
statement is legally insufficient to overturn respondent's
determination in the notice of deficiency.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011