Jeffrey Thomas Kearney - Page 3




                                        - 3 -                                         

          me, they lack the authority, and in my written requests to them             
          to prove their authority, they chose to break the law by not                
          responding."  In his amended petition, petitioner alleges that              
          the "IRS has no legal authority to assess a tax delinquency in              
          the amount of $17,524.00 against me."  The amended petition                 
          asserts that the "delinquency assessment in the amount of                   
          $17,524.00 should be ordered to be held null and void as it does            
          not apply to compensation for labor."                                       
               In his second amended petition, petitioner admits that                 
          during 1995 he received (1) wages of $16,852, (2) IRA                       
          distributions of $42,596, and (3) pension/annuity distributions             
          of $48,418 (more than respondent determined in the notice of                
          deficiency).  Petitioner assigned error only to the determination           
          that such amounts are subject to taxation.  In the second amended           
          petition, petitioner alleged that his filing status for 1995 is             
          head of household, that he is entitled to claim three exemptions            
          (one for himself and two for dependents described as his son and            
          daughter), and that he has various itemized deductions.                     
               Petitioner offered no evidence to support his alleged filing           
          status, his claim of three exemptions, or his purported itemized            
          deductions.                                                                 
               In general, the determinations made by the Commissioner in a           
          notice of deficiency are presumed to be correct, and the taxpayer           
          bears the burden of proving that those determinations are                   
          erroneous.  Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115              
          (1933).  Moreover, any issue not raised in the pleadings is                 

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011