Frank A. Luca and Sherry L. Luca - Page 8

                                         - 8 -                                          
               On June 27, 2000, the Court ordered petitioners’ counsel,                
          Mr. Luca, and Ms. Luca each to file a response to respondent’s                
          motion to dismiss on or before July 18, 2000.  The Court further              
          required that a copy of such order be served on Mr. Luca, using               
          his address at the Federal prison facility, and on Ms. Luca,                  
          using both the Harmony Hills and Warm Springs addresses.  Both                
          copies of the order sent to Ms. Luca were returned as                         
          undeliverable.9  Neither Mr. Luca, Ms. Luca, nor petitioners’                 
          counsel filed the required response to the motion to dismiss.                 
          Furthermore, the Court was never provided with details of the                 
          third potential address for Ms. Luca to which counsel for                     
          petitioners alluded at the hearing.                                           
               Respondent’s deficiency determinations are entitled to a                 
          presumption of correctness, and the burden is on petitioners to               
          prove that the determinations are erroneous.  See Rule 142(a);                
          Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).  Similarly,                     
          petitioners carry the burden of proving that they are not liable              
          for the section 6662(a) accuracy-related penalties at issue.  See             
          Rule 142(a); Compaq Computer Corp. v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 214,             
          226 (1999).                                                                   
               Rule 123(b) provides for dismissal of a case when a taxpayer             

               9  The copy sent to the Harmony Hills address was marked                 
          “Unclaimed”, while the copy sent to the Warm Springs address was              
          marked “Forwarding Order Expired”.                                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011