- 6 -
Court in Cleveland, Ohio. The notice, in pertinent part, states:
"YOUR FAILURE TO APPEAR MAY RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AND
ENTRY OF DECISION AGAINST YOU. * * * YOUR FAILURE TO COOPERATE
MAY ALSO RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE CASE AND ENTRY OF DECISION
AGAINST YOU."
Petitioner did not appear when the case was called from the
calendar. When petitioner did not appear at trial, respondent
advised the Court that he would not present any testimony on the
issue of the additions to tax for fraud; instead, respondent
would rely on the deemed admissions to carry his burden of proof
on this issue.
All material allegations in the petition have been denied in
respondent's answer. No issues have been raised as to petitioner
upon which the burden of proof is on respondent except the fraud
issue, and respondent has not conceded any error assigned in the
petition.
Discussion
Deficiency Determination
Respondent's determinations of fact are presumptively
correct, and petitioner bears the burden of proving otherwise.
See Rule 142(a); Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
Petitioner has clearly failed to meet its burden and, in any
event, the deemed admitted affirmative allegations in
respondent's answer establish the deficiencies. See Doncaster v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011