- 67 -
6673(a)(1); see also the Court’s Order dated September
19, 2000.
OPINION
Preliminary Matters
At trial, petitioners chose not to testify, did not call any
other witnesses, and, except for the joint exhibits attached to
the parties’ stipulation of facts, introduced no documentary
evidence into the record. Instead, in support of their position
regarding the determination in the notice that they have unre-
ported Schedule C gross receipts for 1995, petitioners advance,
inter alia, the following arguments with respect to that determi-
nation: (1)(a) “the Commissioner must introduce some reasonable
foundation supporting the tax deficiency in order to preserve the
presumption of correctness”, and (b) even if such a foundation
exists, respondent’s method of reconstructing petitioners’
unreported Schedule C gross receipts for 1995 is arbitrary; and
(2) respondent has the burden of proof. In support of their
position regarding the determination in the notice disallowing
the claimed 1995 Schedule C depreciation deductions with respect
to petitioners’ two automobiles, petitioners rely, inter alia, on
certain facts that the Court found in Barmes v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-254, affd. per curiam without published opinion
__F.3d__ (7th Cir., June 19, 2001).
Page: Previous 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011