- 10 -
Petitioner relies on Hiner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-
608, where we said:
Proof of mailing requires some proof that the
return was placed in an envelope that was properly
addressed, stamped, and placed in the mail. * * *
Petitioner contends that he satisfied the legal standard stated
in Hiner because Ball prepared his 1993 tax return and gave him a
properly addressed envelope with prepaid postage.
Petitioner erroneously relies on Hiner. We held in Hiner
that the taxpayer did not prove that he mailed the return at
issue. The taxpayer in Hiner testified about his tax return
filing practices and that he believed he timely filed the return
at issue. Here, petitioner's testimony is unpersuasive like that
of the taxpayer in Hiner.
Petitioner contends that he conservatively estimated and
prepaid taxes due, and that this shows that he filed his 1993
return before March 24, 1997. We disagree. Paying estimated tax
is not evidence that petitioner filed a return for 1993.
Petitioner contends that respondent has the burden of
proving that he did not file a 1993 return before April 15, 1997.
We disagree. Petitioner bears the burden of proving that he
filed his 1993 return. Rule 142(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011