Petitioner argues that he mailed his return before the
extended filing date, albeit without requesting a return receipt.
Despite petitioner's argument, the evidence in the record weighs
against him. Petitioner did not explain why the stipulated copy
of his 1996 return shows that he is due a refund of $666 when he
alleged that his timely 1996 return "calculated credit, less than
$100, [to] be applied to subsequent years." Although he argues
that he filed his request for extension of time to file with a
$200 payment, respondent's records indicate that the request for
an extension was filed, but with a $100 payment.
Aside from the above factual discrepancies, petitioner
failed to explain at trial why he stipulated that he "filed his
U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for the taxable year 1996 on
April 28, 2000, the date it was received by respondent's Appeals
Division." Respondent's transcript of account indicates all of
the contacts petitioner alleges he had with the Internal Revenue
Service for his 1996 tax year, except for the filing of a Federal
income tax return before April 28, 2000.
It is the duty of the Court to listen to testimony, observe
the demeanor of witnesses, weigh the evidence, and determine what
to believe. The Court is not required to accept testimony at
face value, and the Court may discount a party's self-interested
testimony and place reliance on other evidence which is believed
to be more reliable. See Christensen v. Commissioner, 786 F.2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011