- 5 -
Conversely, respondent asserts that income received by
petitioner is taxable pursuant to the explicit terms of the
Internal Revenue Code. Respondent further contends that
petitioner’s constitutional arguments are without merit, and, as
petitioner has presented no other evidence rebutting the
determinations made by respondent, the deficiencies and additions
to tax should be sustained.
We agree with respondent that the Federal income tax
statutes are properly applicable to petitioner. We therefore
conclude that petitioner is liable for the deficiencies as
determined by respondent and that petitioner’s failure to file
income tax returns justifies imposing the delinquency addition to
tax.
As a threshold matter, we observe that petitioner’s efforts
to shift the burden of proof to respondent on constitutional
grounds are meritless. The burden of proof rests on the
taxpayer, except in certain situations not relevant here. See
Rule 142(a). Furthermore, this burden of proof has been
uniformly applied, regardless of whether the taxpayer’s arguments
addressed the amount or the constitutionality of the tax. See,
e.g., Larsen v. Commissioner, 765 F.2d 939, 941 (9th Cir. 1985);
Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 405 (1984); Kish v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011